Genetic Engineered Food

[krantikari]

Saw this video on netflix. It is also available on this website. Many of you would have seen it... there may be some who have not. Some information provided in this film is shocking. Makes us more aware of the muck the govt and big corporations have been pushing down our gullet. Do take time to see the whole video. Your time will be well spent.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html

[swami]

Did not see the video yet but what I feel that later on medical companies would be offering money to engineer certain common foods like rice wheat so that the majority get some autoimmune disorder and sales of their drugs soar.

But what can we do ? Start Facebook Campaign ? Politicians worldwide are same thick skinned ,heartless and pocket fillers :down:

[krantikari]

As per the video, the Govt is full of ex top management from the giants who are engineering these seeds. The aim is to be able to control the complete food market of the world. If this is not checked, very soon all food that we eat will be coming from four major companies. They can dictate the price, they can dictate what grows where, farmers will lose control over their fields... etc...
We should protest against patenting of the living gene. Feeling bad that the root of all the fuckup is the Indian scientist who first patented a gene (watch the video). They very well explain the flaw in the patent laws being exploited by the giants and they are not going to let it change.

[krantikari]

Madhya Pradesh opposes biotech regulatory Bill

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article2647716.ece

Madhya Pradesh has decided to officially oppose the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, to be tabled in the Parliament on Tuesday.

State Agriculture Minister Ramkrishna Kusmaria has written to Union Science and Technology Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, stating Madhya Pradesh's opposition to some key provisions of Bill.

“States have a Constitutional right to decide on the subjects of health and agriculture. The BRAI Bill, regarding which I have drawn the Centre's attention earlier, violates this right thereby compromising the States' autonomy,” Dr. Kusmaria has said in his letter to Mr. Deshmukh.

Dr. Kusmaria has also pointed out that genetic modification of crops was a dangerous technology, the safety of which had yet to be established.

“Indian farmers will get dependent on GM seeds and eventually the entire indigenous agriculture will fall under the control of a few international corporations,” the Minister has written.

It is for these reasons, Dr. Kusmaria has written, that the Madhya Pradesh government registers its strong protest against the BRAI Bill and the proposed field trials of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the State.

The BRAI Bill reportedly has certain controversial provisions against which several States, including Kerala and Orissa, have registered their protests.

Eleven former Supreme Court judges, including former Chief Justice of India Justice M.H. Kania, have also issued a “statement of concern” on the BRAI Bill.

----------------------
The likes of diggy have to be kept at bay in matters like this...

Two thumbs up to Ramkrishna Kusmaria :up: :up:

http://khojkhabarnews.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/lakh.jpg

Ramkrishna Kusmaria (born 30 July 1942) is an Indian politician and a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) political party. He was a member of the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Lok Sabha of India. In the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Lok Sabha, he represented Damoh constituency and in the 14th Lok Sabha he represented Khajuraho constituency of Madhya Pradesh state. In 2008, he was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from Pathariya constituency and resigned from the Lok Sabha on 19 December 2008.

[Metafours]

So this monsanto is as dangerous as the taliban or more....:(

[landyaBhai]

Kusmariya is from my gaav, Patharia :rep:

[krantikari]

Kusmariya is from my gaav, Patharia :rep:

kisko rep kiya be?

[Sane Less]

kisko rep kiya be?
Sorry... us ne galti se mere account mein daal diya. If you wish, I can transfer to you. Let me know.

[swami]

Ok transfer it to this account,just letting you know ;)
Sorry... us ne galti se mere account mein daal diya. If you wish, I can transfer to you. Let me know.

[Sane Less]

Ok transfer it to this account,just letting you know ;)
I will wait for Krankitara pai's response before doing any transfer vansfer.

Waise bhi, apun toh dupes hai yaar... kya pharak tere account mein ya mere account mein:D

[krantikari]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/why-arent-g-m-o-foods-labeled/?ref=geneticallymodifiedfood#h[]

Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled?

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s — genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work.

In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last — may not be far behind.

It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s another story.)

They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9 percent G.M.O.’s must be labeled.

G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.)

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.) But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic; if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.

This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)


But the testing process is suspect: the F.D.A. relied on data submitted by AquaBounty (that data is for fish raised in Prince Edward Island, even though the company plans to raise the fish in Panama, which is possibly illegal).

Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a “new animal drug” which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say, fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of organic food and now even congressmen — last week, a bill was introduced to ban G.E. salmon — believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias towards the industry.

Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?)

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.

In the long run, genetic engineering may prove to be useful. Or not. The science is adolescent at best; not even its strongest advocates can guarantee that there aren’t hidden dangers. So consumers are understandably cautious, and whether that’s justified or paranoid, it would seem we have a right to know as much as Europeans do.

Even more than questionable approvals, it’s the unwillingness to label these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it?

A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.’s, and there’s little reason to think more isn’t on the way. It seems our “regulators” are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever.

[krantikari]

When genetically modified crop cross pollinates (bees, winds etc...) with a organic crop, the patented genes gets transferred to the organic crop and is contaminated. Monsanto comes back and sues the farmer of the organic field saying he is using the patented gene.

If a genetic modified Salmon jhingalalas with a organic salmon in open sea, the resulting salmon will contain the contaminated patented gene. Who will Monsanto come after seeking the compensation?

[bramptonmt]

When genetically modified crop cross pollinates (bees, winds etc...) with a organic crop, the patented genes gets transferred to the organic crop and is contaminated. Monsanto comes back and sues the farmer of the organic field saying he is using the patented gene.

If a genetic modified Salmon jhingalalas with a organic salmon in open sea, the resulting salmon will contain the contaminated patented gene. Who will Monsanto come after seeking the compensation?

The GM salmon is being produced for fish farming. I guess then then they can sue other fish farmers if their salmon gets contaminated by genetically modified salmon.

Interesting video.

There is conflicting information about genetically modified tomatoes in the internet. Some says it exists, some say it has been withdrawn because people did not like it. There is a list of genetically modified food at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

[Sane Less]

When genetically modified crop cross pollinates (bees, winds etc...) with a organic crop, the patented genes gets transferred to the organic crop and is contaminated. Monsanto comes back and sues the farmer of the organic field saying he is using the patented gene.

If a genetic modified Salmon jhingalalas with a organic salmon in open sea, the resulting salmon will contain the contaminated patented gene. Who will Monsanto come after seeking the compensation?
Now who tf is Monsanto... and why tf is s/he going around suing poor farmers:confused:

[krantikari]

Now who tf is Monsanto...

As Metafours mentioned, right now they look like a bigger threat than the terrorists.

and why tf is s/he going around suing poor farmers:confused:

See the video I linked in my first post.

[krantikari]

http://www.naturalnews.com/029487_cloned_beef_DNA.html

Dead cow carcasses "resurrected" to produce cloned beef

We already know that cloned beef has entered the food supply both in the United States and the UK. Now, thanks to revelations from JR Simplot, a U.S. company specializing in the cloning of cows for beef production, we're learning that dead cows are cloned to produce the next generation of beef cattle.

Here's how it works: A large number of cows are slaughtered and then chopped into steaks that are tested for their flavor, texture and other qualities important to steak eaters. The source animal of each steak is recorded, and cells from that source carcass are preserved for possible cloning in case the steak turns out to taste good. Once all the steaks are gauged for their desirability, the dead cow carcasses from which the flesh was cut to produce the steaks are harvested for their DNA.

This DNA is then used to clone new cows who are fed, raised and slaughtered to see how their flesh steaks taste. This cycle is repeated through multiple generations in order to "evolve" cow clones with great-tasting flesh.

"The animals are hanging on a rail ready to go to the meat counter," JR Simplot employee Brady Hicks (yes, that's his real name) told BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...). "We identify carcasses that have certain carcass characteristics that we want, but it's too late to reproduce the genetics of the animal. But through cloning we can resurrect that animal."

This "bovine resurrection," it turns out, is just the latest mad science idea from an industry that recognizes no value in the life of a cow but tremendous value from its dead carcass.

Frankenfood beef

The upshot of all this is that the beef people are buying and eating in the US and UK right now could be from cow clones raised from the dead carcasses of other cows whose DNA were harvested for cloning. Yep: Only in the food industry do you see this sort of Frankenstein science -- trying to create life from dead body parts through a process they call "resurrection"... and then serving up Frankenfoods to consumers.

Far from the world of live foods, beef products are dead food made from dead cows that were given life by taking dead cells from the carcasses or other dead cows who were only kept alive in order to harvest their dead DNA. If it sounds a little sick and demented, that's because it undoubtedly is. This process violates so many principles of ethics and spirituality that it's hard to even know where to begin.

Of course, by the time a thousand cow carcasses are all ground up, mixed together, extruded, irradiated and packaged, no one can tell where the beef actually come from... or even if it was cloned in the first place. Slap a greasy patty of cloned beef between two hamburger buns at a fast food joint and no one is the wiser.

That's sort of the point, actually: The beef industry knows that people don't really have much of a clue where their beef comes from -- and they don't want to know! So even if beef comes from cloned animals raised from the harvested DNA of dead cow carcasses, the average consumer remains clueless.

The high price of low cost

The goal of the beef industry is to create the best-tasting beef in the world at the lowest cost possible. Period.

There is no consideration in the industry for the experience of the cow, nor the ethics of playing God with bovine DNA, nor compassion for the suffering of these animals when they are slaughtered, nor the impact of factory farming on the environment. It's all about corporate profits at the expense of the cows who are born, bred, cloned and slaughtered merely to produce another quarter-pounder that ratchets up another dime in profits for the beef factories.

If you haven't yet seen The Meatrix, be sure to check it out: www.TheMeatrix.com

Think about that the next time you dare to buy anything made from cow parts. You may be buying Franken-cow beef originating from the "resurrected" DNA of a bovine carcass.

By the way, very few American consumers know the truth about this. They have no idea cows are being cloned from dead carcasses to create cloned beef that the FDA has already declared to be "safe" for the food supply. To help spread the word, please share this story using the Facebook or Twitter buttons above. People need to know the truth about what's really going into their foods.

Whole Foods, by the way, has banned cloned meat products in its stores. So if you do eat beef, you can safely shop for it at Whole Foods without encountering cloned beef. Of course, you'd probably be better off with a predominantly plant-based diet, but that's another article altogether.

Cloned beef will NOT be labeled as "cloned" in the USA. So there's no way to know whether conventional beef you're buying at the grocery stores (or eating at a restaurant) actually contains cloned beef. The industry will lobby hard to avoid honest labeling in much the same way that the GMO industry doesn't want foods labeled as "genetically modified."

There's one thing we all know for sure: The beef industry prefers to keep consumers in the dark about where all that beef really comes from.

[krantikari]

Watch the Meatrix Video :

u4_pzPrMTrs

[krantikari]

http://i1.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/draft_lens1970771module9386346photo_1209850075Genetic_Engineering.gif