What documentary?

The patents for a certain technology were given to Monsanto who subsquently sold or leased the technology to many other seed growers. The embedding is not Round Up but rather Round Up resistance.

here is a link to a free video very similiar to the one I paid to see.
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html
I will go back to netflix and see if I can get the name of the movie...I believe it was corn king but not sure. I had no clue all this was going on and now cant read enough. Very scary. Comments?

The documentary was called Corn King it is a documentary and I saw it on Netflix but would guess you could rent this anywhere.

Bagger 288!

Here is a link that might be useful: Bagger 288

Avoid processed foods. That's all there is to it, and it's all that an individual can do.

Although it was not supposed to have happened much of the open pollinated corn has been contaminated by Monsantos Genetically Engineered stuff through cross pollination.
It is not just processed foods that are contaminated, it is reaching into all foods even those we grow in our gardens.

Like I said, all one can do is avoid the mass food chain.

Kisser, you are right and about the cross pollination which means farmers were sued by Monsanto and can no longer use there own seed that through no falt of there own cross pollinated there seed. This can infact now happen to home gardens if Genetically altered seed ends up in a neighbors yard.

To find more about it, search for GMO foods (genetically modified organisms.)

Clickable link to the documentary, The Future of Food.

If you read the labels of foods that aren't even supposed to contain corn, you will find a primary ingredient of many foods is corn in some form. Even mustard, salad dressings, chocolate syrup. There's corn starch, modified corn starch, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, and many other monikers. Just now, looking at this list, I was inspired to read the label of the "pure vanilla extract" I bought. I didn't feel the need to read the label on the "pure vanilla extract" at the time I bought it, although I read the label of almost everything before buying, but sure enough, it has corn syrup in it. Sheesh!!!!!!! Since 1993, food companies have been permitted to put GMO ingredients in food without any indication on the label.

I am amazed at how ignorent I have been trusting the government would look our for us all. I am not a fanatic but an everyday american who is shocked at how little we are made aware of how all this will effect us and our children.

Mustard, extract, condiments, they don't amount to much. What you want to think about is what is making up the bulk of one's meals?

Restaurant food is garbage, for sure, with few exceptions. So no eating out. Pre-made food is even worse, or about equal to fast food. So that's out. GMO's are not allowed in organic certification, so the best bet, outside of growing one's food or knowing who grows it, is to buy organic food as little-processed as possible.

Get a mill and buy organic grain. Buy organic dry beans. and so forth. And it is much cheaper than buying prepared foods.

Yes, looking at organic, especially meat that is free range. It is a crap shoot isnt it all?

...aware of how all this will effect us and our children. Nobody knows. We're the guinea pigs.

I'm not satisfied with the "just avoid it and forget it" approach, that's an unreasonable burden for the consumer to bear. I'm not interested in food without condiments. If those things are all over one's food, they're pretty important. More info should be on the label, and there should be more information about produce, whether or not it was produced from GMO seeds. Nobody around here is much interested in "organic" so the handful of items with this label at the grocery store are not a selection to which I'm willing to restrict myself. I shouldn't have to pay a significantly higher amount for some food items when that is not always necessary to avoid GMO's/unwanted ingredients, and there are plenty of items one can buy at an ordinary grocery store that are good, healthy food. The onus should be on the companies to tell us what is in their products so we are able to make informed decisions.

Restaurant food is garbage, for sure, with few exceptions. So no eating out. Pre-made food is even worse, or about equal to fast food. I share the same general opinions about these things, and that's just not good enough. Going out to dinner is fun, and it's not always possible to eat home-made food if you're not at home. Having enough info to make an informed decision is the solution I would like to see.

When enough people complain enough, things can be changed. The fact that there is organic labeling is one good change. You can get apples with your happy meal instead of fries if you want. Most stores have stopped selling BGH milk. The current food label is another area that has seen many improvements. There's a lot of good info there, but just not enough. If you think ketchup should be made with tomatoes instead of corn syrup, send the company an email. If you're avoiding a business or no longer buying a product you used to, your protest is pointless unless you tell the company how you feel. If the produce manager at the grocery store has to spend extra time with people wanting to know more about the produce for sale, they may decide a label could save them a lot of time and serve the needs of their customers, or that they should alter some of their selections. Companies will produce whatever we will buy, and only tell us what we insist on knowing. Search for more info, tell other people what's going on, especially the kids. If you're concerned, do something proactive.

I agree with not forgetting it but becoming more informed. First step would be for sure getting the FDA to require labeling. Have been looking at labels now and very little is there except calories etc. I hate having to spend more for organic but other than becoming more informed it is my first step in protecting myself and family. Getting tobacco labeled too many years when most said we would never see it. Lets not forget it is the people who speak out and up who made that difference.

Purple, for me giving all that feed-back to retailers and producers is more trouble than simply avoiding the stuff. Happily, I like raising food, harvesting and storing, cooking, and etc, so it works.

Certainly it will be a good thing if people activate to effect the food chain.

The video was "King Corn".

Over 85% of the non-sweet corn in the U.S. is genetically-modified. The RoundUp-Ready variety has been designed to have NINE TIMES the usual dosage of RoundUp applied to it and still survive.

The percentage of soybeans grown in the U.S. that is genetically modified is even higher than corn.

Going back to sugar from corn syrup? Guess what? Most of the sugar beets are GM, too.

The thing is, if Monsanto wanted to prevent the GM gene from contaminating non-GM crops, they have the ability to do with their 'Terminator Gene', that doesn't allow their crops to reproduce, but they didn't.

I would like to know how much Obama was paid to put Monsanto's best buddy and main mouthpiece, Tom Vilsack, in his cabinet as Sec. of Agriculture. Obama isn't likely to be re-elected, so Vilsack recently gave the USDA green light of approval for Monsanto to go full-speed ahead with UNREGULATED use of GM Alfalfa. He totally ignored the public opposition to GM crops, he ignored the courts, and he even ignored the people in conventional (non-organic) agriculture who said GM needs more research.

GM alfalfa is fed to an awful lot of meat and milk animals: beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, goats, rabbits, etc.

And you know the rule: what they eat, we eat.

A few years ago, some hog farmers in the U.S. got together with some hog farmers in Canada, and were discussing some funny stuff that had been going on since they had started using GM feed. It seems that their female hogs weren't conceiving. And when they did conceive, they eventually "gave birth" to sacks of water instead of piglets. When the farmers decided to go back to conventional feed, the hogs conceived, and normal piggies were born.

So what happens to the human babies after their parents and grandparents eat all this GM crap?

BTW, Microsoft dork Bill Gates is solidly behind Monsanto. I guess he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

If you're interested in ecologically sound and responsible agriculture, try a subscription to AcresUSA, it's fascinating, and they give the low-down on a lot of this crap that the main news media doesn't mention.

Sue

Here is a link that might be useful: AcresUSA

So we all agree that the commercial, non-organic food chain is dross at best and deadly at worst. Gradually the organic food chain is being co-opted as well, so one has to be very careful with that also. Therefor, whether one likes it or not, carefully selecting unprocessed food and preparing at home is the only cost-effective way to eat without poisoning oneself.

Sue, I believe the terminator gene was itself terminated by Monsanto long ago. And yes, the Gates foundation is a major player in importing commercial ag into Africa, to the great detriment of sustainability there.

I am glad that I grow my food very far from commercial ag operations, so the chance of my heirlooms getting contaminated with GMO is tiny.

belgianpup, excellent contribution, thanks for the info.

Another documentary can be watched for free, The World According to Monsanto.

Why would anyone think that an introduced gene to resist RoundUp damage would hurt someone eating the corn, other than the fact that RoundUp was applied?

No one usually would be afraid of a crop conventionally bred or selected to resist such damage, or resist insects or disease, even though there is a bit of risk in even those latter two.

(The corporatization of world agriculture is an entirely separate problem, with considerable validity.)

In fact, I don't have much concern about GMO's.

The main problem with commercial crops is the severe depletion of soil minerals, and consequent lack of minerals in the staple foods, as well as a concurrent relative excess of nitrates in the crops. Additionally to that is of course the extreme over-processing, and then come the issues with herbicide and pesticide residues, ecoli and other human pathogens in washing water for fresh produce, and on and on. Top it all off with the fact that the grain and soybeans one is eating in the hyper-processed junk end result was likely grown at least two seasons ago, in many cases.

And that is merely the list for non-meat products. It is a miserable mess. To be avoided at any cost to pocket and convenience.

Indeed! My friends think I am strange and so? I buy less & less at any grocery store--either grow it myself or buy dry organic online.

My dogs now get food with no corn, wheat or soy thus tripling my costs.

Trying to avoid poisoning is an ongoing nightmare!

"Why would anyone think that an introduced gene to resist RoundUp damage would hurt someone eating the corn, other than the fact that RoundUp was applied?

"No one usually would be afraid of a crop conventionally bred or selected to resist such damage, or resist insects or disease, even though there is a bit of risk in even those latter two."
.................................

Why would YOU think it's a good thing to GENETICALLY insert animal or insect DNA/drugs/chemical/viruses into your food in a labratory???

GM food is in NO WAY natural. It's not plant breeding, like improving for local climate, or even hybridization. IT IS A TOTALLY ARTIFICAL method of tampering with food.

Monsanto has suppressed all negative testing, all negative questions. They contribute tons of money to the ag colleges, so when some prof. or student does some work that shows Monsanto in a negative light, Monsanto says to the college, "What, you don't like our money?" It's blackmail, pure and simple. Is that okay with you? Why do you think they do it?

The RoundUp-Ready crops are created in a lab so they can withstand 7 to 9 TIMES the normal application of RoundUp --why would you think that having your food drowned in that stuff would be such a great idea? Despite their pressure, it finally came out a few years ago that RoundUp isn't the benign soup of chemicals that Monsanto swore it was. IOW, they lied about that, too.

The first danger with GM foods is that they are TOTALLY UNTESTED. I mentioned the hogs previously. What was wrong with the GM feed that caused these problems? What other unexpected problems are going to show up? Is anyone in your family planning on children? Are deformities, genetic damage, intense allergies, etc, all just fine with you?

The next danger is gross contamination of the food supply. Monsanto creates, and stupid farmers grow, mega-tons of GM corn, soy, beets and others. Not only does the pollen from these crops contaminate other types of corn/canola/soy/beets/etc, and destroys pure stands of clean and heirloom crops, but it also will contaminate ALL THE RELATIVES OF THESE CROPS. Monsanto swore that none of the pollen would go more than 1/8 mile. Another lie.

Within a few years of Monsanto letting loose its contaminating pollen of rapeseed (source of canola oil), previously-pure stands of rapeseed in Britain showed up with Monsanto's genes in it. There are NO GM plants allowed in Britain, but just like the winds sweep the entire planet, so does plant pollen.

Another problem with GM plants is that they are identical. I mean IDENTICAL. What they're resistant to is identical, and what they're susceptible to is identical. So if a disease shows up in a GM crop in the NW U.S. or Canada, and the wind carries it east across N. America, it is likely to contaminate all the GM plants and many of the regular OP plants. The following year, the farmers plant the seed harboring the disease, and it spreads to Europe and then the winds swirl it below the equator to Africa, S. America and Australia?

It's happened in regular plants -- you've read about the great potato blight that caused mass starvation in Ireland in the mid-1800s. Do you know how to spell FAMINE?

The real beauty of natural open-pollinated plants is their wide genetic diversity. Every seed has slightly different genes. Every time a flower opens, it's visited by many insects that are tracking pollen from many other plants on their feet, legs, winds and fuzzy body covering, leaving a bit on each flower, picking up more pollen from that flower and moving it to another flower and other plants. So, when the seeds form, they all have different a combination of genes. If you hold a small bag in your hand that holds a half-cup of seed, all of them have slight genetic differences.

This genetic diversity is what saves the plant family from a host of problems. Let's take wheat, a food staple around the world.

Let's use wheat as an example. Monsanto has GM wheat.

Some of the types of wheat are:

Common wheat - most common around the world
Hard red winter - this and the next five are most commonly grown in the U.S.
Hard red spring
Soft red winter
Hard white
Soft white
Durum

Einkorn These next four are older, closer to the wild types
Emmer
Spelt
Khorasan

Now, just suppose that a disease shows up in Monsanto's wheat, it is carried by the wind all over the world and destroys most of the crops of the GM wheat PLUS most of the first seven wheats above.

Let's also suppose the next four (and other lesser-grown types) have some gene in them that protects them from the disease.

How long do you think it would take to gather the clean seed and multiply it so everyone in the world could have a loaf of bread once a month?

Does that make you feel all warm and cozy? Well, it scares the bejesus out ME!

Sue

Neither our government nor Big Business has much in the way of scruples. Greed and manipulation, yes, but not scruples.

"In recent years, France and several other European countries banned Monsanto's MON-810 corn and similar genetically modified food crops. In late 2007, the U.S. ambassador to France recommended "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union in an attempt to fight the French ban and changes in European policy toward genetically modified crops, according to a U.S. government diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks. The U.S. ambassador to France recommended retaliation to cause "some pain across the EU."

So, they don't like the EU cutting into their profits, eh? Well, they don't even want to TELL Americans! There is a big fight to keep the info on what specific fresh and processed foods are, or have, GM ingredients.

If you eat anything made with ground corn, high-fructose corn syrup, most soft drinks, etc, you're eating GM. If the foods don't SPECIFICALLY SAY they're either organic or non-GMO, they've probably got at least some GM ingredients.

So far, there are several kinds of genetically-modified (GM) food plants:

Corn (field corn, maize)-86% of corn grown in U.S. is GM. People think of this a feed corn (most is), but it's also the corn used in chips, cornstarch, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, etc).

Sweet corn - about 50% of it grown in the U.S. is GM, sneaked into the food supply while no one was watching, although only approved for livestock use.

Soybeans - 93% of total grown in U.S. is GM

Canola (from rapeseed) - 93% of total grown in U.S. is GM

Sugar beets - 95% of total grown in U.S. is GM

Cotton - 93% of total grown in U.S. is GM. The oil is a human food, and the seed cakes are fed to livestock, which are fed to us.

Papaya - 80% of total grown in U.S. (Hawaii) is GM

Squash (Zucchini & yellow summer squash) - 13% of total grown in U.S. is GM

Milk products - about 22% of U.S. dairies inject their cows with rbGH growth hormone.

Some vitamin products are made from, or contain 'carriers' of, GM crops: Vit. C (from corn), Vit. E from soy, A, B2, B6, B12 can be made from GM crops, D and K may contain GM corn sources (starch, glucose, maltodextrin).

Sweet peppers - right now, only a small amt. is grown in China

Potatoes -mostly taken off the market because the big commercial french fry producers wouldn't use them, but but the push is still on, will succeed if they don't have to label them.

Rice - 'Golden Rice' planned for the 2013 market. There is also a rice containing human proteins. Soylent Green, here we come!

Chicory (radicchio, red-hearted), exists, but not on market right now.

Sugar cane - there is GM sugarcane but consumers wouldn't buy it, so none is currently produced.

Tomatos - taken off the market in the U.S., but a small amt. is still grown in China.

Peas - They exist, but caused immune responses in mice.

Flax of the GM type was introduced in 2001, but none is now grown because no one would buy it.

Alfalfa - legalized this year w/no restraints. What livestock eat, we eat.

Tobacco - Quest brand is GM.

What about honey made from pollen collect from GM crops?

Sue

"Why would anyone think that an introduced gene to resist RoundUp damage would hurt someone eating the corn, other than the fact that RoundUp was applied?
"No one usually would be afraid of a crop conventionally bred or selected to resist such damage, or resist insects or disease, even though there is a bit of risk in even those latter two."
.................................

Why would YOU think it's a good thing to GENETICALLY insert animal or insect DNA/drugs/chemical/viruses into your food in a labratory???

GM food is in NO WAY natural. It's not plant breeding, like improving for local climate, or even hybridization. IT IS A TOTALLY ARTIFICAL method of tampering with food.
=========

Not so. One of the first gene implants was a flounder gene into a tomato I believe, either for flavor or freeze resistance, I forget. Why would I care? I'd eat a flounder.

Has any gene been created yet? Seems unlikely. I don't think we are that far along. It seems far more likely that these are simply natural genes just transplanted. No big deal to me in terms of eating in most cases. There would be a few exceptions but these could involve normally bred varieties too. Not a little disease and insect resistance involves the crop producing its own "natural" toxic chemicals. Something we don't often consider.

As an amusing aside, a similar hubbub occurred from a few hundred years ago up to about a hundred years ago and involved budding and grafting. "Un-natural!" the opponents roared indignantly. It is thought that Johnny Appleseed himself (John Chapman I believe the real name) would have never countenanced grafting and budding. A seedling was the only "natural" way. Well we've outgrown that.

And to expand on your example, in fact, the fixation on a few apple types propagated clonally and the avoidance of seed-grown standard trees has led to a dangerous narrowing of the apple gene pool outside of it's origin region. Within that region total numbers of trees are decreasing due to development and climate change.

Growing out pippins is a ver good thing to do, therefor. I hope it will provide me with vigorous self-sufficient apple trees, even if the fruit is only suitable for sauce or jelly, or cider.

Very good info Sue and most of the rest of you too!
Sounds like "gonebananas" has swallowed...hook, line & sinker all the propaganda put out by the chemical companies.
Here is something else to take a look at if you think chemical farming is good for us or that it isn't slowly killing us....

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf

It is the results of a 30 yr. study of 2 farms...one organic & one chemical. Some VERY interesting results there.

And another little thing...
EVERYONE should look at the USDA site for the regulations reguarding words used in advertising like...organic, natural, free range, etc. Most of those words don't necessarily mean/can be used to mean what WE, the general public, might "think" they mean!!!
Inform yourselves!!

Apples in the US are a crop among the least likely to lose its diversity (at the existing national scale at least). Collection, preserving, and propagating hundreds of heirloom apples is actively undertaken by diligent enthusiasts.

The apple's Asian homeland is indeed threatened. A US researcher recently brought back thousands of seeds from the highly diverse central population in a desperate attempt to maintain some of this gene pool.

As another aside, do the more-worried eaters shun crops with purposeful radiation-induced useful mutations? Would a Satsuma orange made seedless by gamma-radiation mutation bother them?

I have to ask.
If this is so wide spread & bad, why has it not been linked to disease?
It is like the cell phone brain cancer study.
They say no great raise in brain cancer is proof that cell phones are not a cause of cancer.
Where is the raise in illness from this GM foods?
Yes, you have the right to eat/not eat what you want.

Gone, yes hundreds of heirlooms growing on just a relatively few types of rootstocks. Also a grafted tree is rarely going to be as thriving as a random ungrafted tree. IMO, apple diversity is in pretty good shape in n.america because of the large numbers of roadside feral trees.

The Cornell collection is also a very valuable gene bank.

For nearly all roadside feral trees, they only have the genes that the two cultivated parents had. So no real gain.

Except that over a large number of trees, each with it's throw of the dice, there is bound to be some drift, some of which could be valuable.

There is no addition though, without mutation.

> If this is so wide spread & bad, why has it not been linked to disease?

Simple. Because it's a multi billion (if not more) dollar racket with Big Ag and Big Pharma being in bed together. And some are even one and the same (Bayer creates both ag-cides and meds). Think about this...how many prescription meds do you or someone in your household take? How often do you take over-the-counter meds for allergies, headaches, etc.? The list of side effects from GMOs and all the Ag chemicals used on our foods is very, very long. The toxins slowly build up in our bodies creating diseases that come on gradually and are chronic. They are not designed to kill us outright, as that would be self-defeating (if you are dead, that is profit lost). But the longer you suffer from discomfort and disease, the more money you will spend on meds and/or going to the doctor in order to try and feel better...and that's more money that you are putting in their pockets. Lets face it...if even half of the U.S. population was truly healthy, this nation would be more broke than it already is. And that can't be allowed to happen. Now you might "think" you are healthy, but in reality if you are taking meds on a pretty regular basis for any reason (even if it's just over-the-counter), then you are NOT healthy, you are not at ease. In other words...disease.

"if even half of the U.S. population was truly healthy, this nation would be more broke than it already is"

An illogical statement, and the reverse of the truth. Sick people, demonstrably, are either less productive than if they were healthy, or not productive at all. They have to be carried by the healthy, or the healthier. Have you never had the flu? How much work does one get done with the flu? Generally it's a struggle just to get out of bed. So your statement, which suggests that if there were more healthy people in the nation the nation would be poorer, has to be nonsense. More healthy people do more work, things cost less, more tax revenue to government, while less cost to government providing services to the sick.

Of course, the idea that the mainstream food supply, in various ways, is making people sick, is inarguable from my perspective. That corporations are intentionally putting things in food to make people sick is unlikely in the extreme. It is simply that they are allowed to do things to food that are unhealthy.

pn, Well said there. I don't think that we are being poisoned in a deliberate way. I think that big farming is successful in producing quantity, but true quality does suffer some in the process.

I think that Big Pharma, the AMA, FDA, and cohoots are a conspiracy against better health....and do hinder it. Let's face it...sickness pays the drug oriented businesses much bettter than vibrant health does.

"I think that Big Pharma, the AMA, FDA, and cohoots are a conspiracy against better health....and do hinder it. Let's face it...sickness pays the drug oriented businesses much bettter than vibrant health does."

Why do you think Dr.s treat symptoms instead of finding the cause???

There were no long term studies to find out exactly what GMO'd crops will do to humans in the long so we are just no getting indications of what MIGHT be coming.
Some cattle & hog farmers seem to be having fertility problems with their livestock that eat GMO'd crops. So we just don't know everything YET!

"There were no long term studies to find out exactly what GMO'd crops will do to humans in the long"

One might start with trying to imagine how they possibly could affect us. As an example from before, if we would happily and safely eat a flounder, why would we think a flounder gene introduced to a tomato could possibly hurt us?

I'm not saying that any and every type of gene introduction is positively without harm, but there sure seems to be little to trigger worry except for genes that are specifically related to toxin production (plant defense from microbes and herbivory). Does anyone do that? I am assuming that no one would find any useful commercial reason to introduce a gene for producing a mutagen, teratogen, etc., in a food or feed crop. In any case, these chemical-production modifications could be evaluated by what is already know about the chemicals.

I thank so many of you who seem to have more knowledge than I about this subject. I am learning and trying to be more aware. Yes, as I have read no long term studies have been done on the effects of GMO's. Have any of you been able to view the video I told you about or the video Food Etc? I would really like to hear some thoughts once you see these two videos.

". In any case, these chemical-production modifications could be evaluated by what is already know about the chemicals."

And therein lies PART of the problem. What happens when all of these chemicals are put together? Opps, they didn't test for that! They only tested each individual chemical by itself not in combination with the others. Also, my soil is different than yours. How do you know what kind of reaction any chemical will have in all the varities of soils available in the US? How do you know all of the reactions of the chemicals with differing weather conditions? And as more of these chemicals become pollution in our water systems....how will that reaction be?

Too many variables that there is NO WAY to control and able to say with any certainty what the outcome will be! They don't know! They may never know until it is way to late to stop. And at this point, it may already be too late with all the cross pollination that is taking place!

And guess what else...they aren't necessary! Look up Rodales' Farm Study results...30 yrs. worth of sustainable vs. convential. VERY interesting.

I prefer to not put unnecessary chemicals into my body but I don't have a choice when our entire food system is loaded with them.

"What happens when all of these chemicals are put together?"

What chemicals? There have to be some to worry about what they may do.