–If GMO foods scare you, this will really make you nuts.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

======================================================================================================================================================================================

There has been a great deal of anxiety surrounding GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) foods.

Almost every food you eat has been genetically modified via crossbreeding. The corn you eat would not exist without genetic modification. The milk you drink comes from cows that have been bred to give more milk.

About the only non-modified food I can imagine is fish, and even here there is at least one exception, which I’ll mention later.

Those concerned about GMO however, are not talking about crossbreeding, but rather gene insertion, via artificial means — from another plant, bacterium, virus or even from an animal.

I’m not sure why one form of gene modification is scarier than another, i.e. why gene insertion is scarier than crossbreeding. Gene change is gene change. Perhaps it is the greater change that can come from gene insertion.

The Atlantic salmon called the AquAdvantage, has been given a gene from a fish called the “ocean pout,” making the salmon grow twice as fast. Had a larger salmon been achieved via crossbreeding, presumably there would be no concern from those desiring “natural food.”

At any rate, I won’t argue that point here. Instead, the purpose of this post is to discuss consumer information.

NaturalNews
Connecticut legislature passes nation’s first ever GMO labeling bill
Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

The state of Connecticut has officially made history by passing the nation’s first ever bill requiring that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) be properly labeled.

There is a good discussion of the pros and cons of labeling GMO (or GE — genetically engineered) foods at: Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.

Clearly, food is a sensitive product, and people want to know what goes into their food, the main question not being whether to label, but how much to label. Should we label all GMO food? All the spices that go into food?

Take a simple bottle of catsup. It can contain tomatoes, vinegar, sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, onions, allspice, cloves, cinnamon, garlic, and celery. What if the onions were genetically engineered? Should that be on the label?

While you ponder that, let’s get to the real the point of this post: Consumer information.

Recently, an article appeared in the January-February 2014 Discover Magazine, page 81, titled, “Chicken Could Go ‘Round the World.” Here are some excerpts:

In Sepember, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would, for the first time, all poultry raised and slaughtered in the U.S. to be shipped to China, processed, and shipped back to be sold to U.S. consumers.

The move touched a nerve with a public already unsettled by repeated food safety scandals in China — notably, the discover in in 2008 that baby formula manufacturers there had deliberately laced their products with toxic melamine to lower costs.

Yes, we already import quite a lot of food from China. Does that make you uncomfortable?

Between 2008 and 2011, Chinese imports made up two-thirds of the apple juice sold in the U.S., a third of its garlic and nearly 80 percent of its tilapia.

If GMO food scares you, does food from China, notorious for lax supervision and outright food criminality, concern you? Is there any reason to trust people who deliberately poison baby formula? Are you having any second thoughts about eating tilapia or drinking apple juice?

And what about or Mexico, India, Brazil, et al. How do we know their food has been inspected properly?

Consider that bottle of catsup. Which of those incredients — the tomatoes, vinegar, sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, onions, allspice, cloves, cinnamon, garlic, and celery — came from a foreign nation’s uninspected factory?

Some worry that this . . . may crack the door to the eventual importation of chicken raised in China.

And what will the Chinese feed those chickens?

Bottom line: We’re in a world market now. While the U.S. inspects most of its food processing plants (though less so now, with deficit reduction), even here there have been scandals of non inspection, along with botulism and other poisons sneaking into our foods.

How well do you think foreign food processing factories are inspected?

Those Tater Tots your kids love, could be raised here, cut and breaded in China and shipped here for packaging, and they would be labeled “Product of USA” or merely “Distributed by XYZ Company, USA.”

Today, our food is labeled as to the country of origin for only the final step in what can be a many stepped process. Should our food be labeled with country of origin for each step of the process and for each ingredient used?

If GMO scares you, country of origin for every step of the process, might concern you even more.

What is your suggestion?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

20 thoughts on “–If GMO foods scare you, this will really make you nuts.

  1. GMO is more scary than cross-breeding because cross-breeding has been going on since the second bacterium appeared, and gene-splicing is doing things that cross-breeding could not do. It’s “unnatural”.

    I think a government-sponsored label stating “all ingredients were produced in the USA without genetic modification” would help people who were afraid of all those things.

    What do you make of the acceleration in GDP growth while the deficit is going down?

    Like

  2. MY SUGGESTION

    As Rodger notes above, almost everything we eat today is genetically modified, whether through cross breeding or gene splicing. A “natural” potato or ear of corn has no resemblance to its original form. Cows, fowl, pigs, and so on today are very different from what they were a century or two ago.

    Since genetic modification is ubiquitous, we will waste our time if we worry about labeling it. We will be caught in an infinite regress, or else we will make labeling decisions that are random, arbitrary, and useless.

    Instead, what’s important are the artificial toxins that may be present in GMO foods. For example, Monsanto has genetically engineered crops to resist Monsanto’s herbicide glyphosate, which is the most common herbicide in use today. These crops are toxic to humans, not because the crops are genetically modified, but because they absorb the glyphosate and pass it on to humans. It is a fact that plants retain glyphosate, and that the chemical is extremely toxic and carcinogenic. The question is whether there is enough residual glyphosate in food crops to be hazardous.

    Therefore, I think that plants in the grocery store should include labels saying, “Contains X-parts per million glyhphosate.”

    Same with all products, whether plant or animal-based. All should have labels listing their full contents. For example, milk contains pus and anti-bacterial agents. These should be in the labels.

    Therefore my suggestion is for labeling to ignore whether food is genetically modified (since ALL food is modified) and instead focus on what’s actually in the food. This will force all consumers to educate themselves (i.e. spend five minutes reading on the Internet).

    Such labeling need not hurt the profits of Big Ag. For example, most companies use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, because it’s cheaper than sugar. Unfortunately it is toxic to the human brain, and disrupts human chemistry in ways that create addictions and obesity. High-fructose corn syrup is also contributing to the global extinction of honeybees (which is too involved to discuss here.)

    The number of consumers that know about high-fructose corn syrup is now so large that some food labels now say, “Contains no high-fructose corn syrup” as a marketing strategy. Pepsi-Cola now has a popular variety (called “Throwback”) which does away with high-fructose corn syrup, and contains regular sugar, like Pepsi did before 1970.

    Or consider something far more deadly: trans-fats (e.g. hydrogenated oils) which kill as many Americans as do cigarettes. Once again, companies use trans-fats because it’s cheaper than are more healthy fats. And once again, enough consumers know about trans-fats that more and more food labels say, “Contains no trans-fats” as a marketing strategy. The FDA is considering a total ban on all trans-fats.

    Note that these changes had nothing to do with the GMO controversy.

    CONCLUSION

    Consumer awareness will not arise from GMO labeling, since everything (EVERYTHING) is genetically modified. Instead, consumer awareness is enhanced by labeling all chemicals and materials that are present in food. I don’t much care if a chicken is grown in the USA, shipped to China for processing, and then shipped back to the USA for consumption. I care about full disclosure of all chemicals that are present, regardless of their source.

    Material contents are hard, objective facts that can be included in labels. By contrast, the GMO debate is an endless hall of mirrors.

    Like

    1. Some good points, but China is not subject to FDA regulation. We know they lie, and steal, produce illegal knock-off products and try to pass them off as legitimate, and attack our networks and personal computers. Knowing a product had not been handled in China would be something of value to many consumers.

      Like

    1. Rodger, my answer to that is that GDP growth figures tend to include the financial economy, which continues to set records, and which is separate from (and a parasite on) the real economy.

      GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports). In this formula the definition of “gross investment” can be twisted to make a GDP seem more robust.

      When a company uses its profits to buy back stock, in order to reduce the outstanding stocks and make each remaining stock more valuable (so that the CEO gets a bigger bonus), is this a “gross investment”? I think not.

      Also, regarding GDP, I can live with figures issued by the St. Louis Fed. However I am skeptical of all GDP figures in the corporate media. (Same with unemployment figures in the media.)

      Like

  3. OFF-TOPIC

    The most cement-headed people of all are those who half “get it,” but refuse to budge any further. I don’t mean incorrigible shysters like Paul Krugman. (There are none so blind as he who is paid not to see.) No, I mean people who seem well-intentioned, but who get stuck in a mental rut.

    Deficit hawks, for example, are far less cement-headed than are deficit doves. The hawks know they are odious liars. They love deficit spending that goes to military contractors, and to Wall Street bailouts. They love higher taxes on the lower classes (e.g. FICA). They hate austerity that might affect the rich.

    By contrast, the deficit doves are “true believers” (i.e. mindless fanatics). They sincerely believe that the US government needs a balanced budget, and that we must have austerity (but not right this moment). They sincerely believe that the US government is funded by taxes, and by borrowing. Hence the doves want higher federal taxes on the rich and poor alike, plus financial transactions taxes that are meaningless and unenforceable. They are “humanitarians.” They are “good.” Hence they are “right.”

    The hawks are like snake oil salesmen. They use lies and obfuscation. Meanwhile the doves are like cult leaders and huckster-priests. They rely on smugness and self-righteousness. They are “true believers.”

    The latter, in their myopia and stubbornness, agree that the federal government needs a balanced budget. Hence they work to widen the gap between the rich and the rest.

    (The same phenomenon manifests in pro-war people and anti-war people. The latter’s stupidity and stubbornness only helps to support imperialist wars of aggression.)

    The “true believers” group (aka righteous morons) includes “public banking” advocates like popular blogger Ellen Brown, who postures as a populist and a progressive. Ms. Brown wants banks that are publicly owned, or at least banks that serve the public rather than Wall Street. This sounds good, but Ms. Brown is cement-headed. Her repeated errors and her stubborn ignorance provide fodder for austerians.

    Consider her latest post, in which she mentions MMT…

    “To stop the collapse of the money supply, in 1933 Roosevelt took the dollar off the gold standard within the United States. In 1945, Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, spoke before the American Bar Association, saying the government was now free to spend as needed to meet its budget, drawing on credit issued by its own central bank. It was a remarkable realization. The government could be funded without taxes, by drawing on credit from its own central bank.”

    Note that even when Ms. Brown mentions the abandonment of the gold standard, she still thinks the federal government gets its money from taxes and bank loans (“drawing on credit from its own central bank”).

    Continuing…

    “Chairman Ruml’s vision is echoed today in the school of economic thought called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). But after Roosevelt’s demise, it was not pursued. The U.S. government continues to fund itself with taxes; and when it fails to recover enough to pay its bills, it continues to borrow, putting itself in debt.”

    Sigh.

    Ellen Brown spends half her time saying that taxes fund the federal government, and the other half saying that loans fund the government. This contradiction doesn’t matter to her, since she is “for the people” (i.e. she is righteous).

    Since Ms. Brown insists that all the federal government’s money comes from taxes and / or from borrowing, she supports the austerians. Her disciples don’t see this, since Ms. Brown is “for the people.”

    Again…

    “What the populists sought was a national currency issued debt-free by the government, on the model of Lincoln’s Greenbacks. What the American people got was a money supply created by private banks as credit (or debt) lent to the government and the people at interest. Although the national money supply would be printed by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, it would be issued by the “bankers’ bank,” the Federal Reserve.”

    Great. We’re back to “the federal government borrows all its money.” What happened to “the federal government runs on taxes”?

    There are many more errors in Ms. Brown’s blog post (link below). Naturally she does not understand the meaning of “national debt, which (as Rodger has often explained) merely represents the aggregate amount of savings deposits at the Fed.

    She concludes:

    “It may be time for a new populist movement, one that demands that the power to issue money be returned to the government and the people it represents; and that the Federal Reserve be made a public utility, owned by the people and serving them. The fire-hose of cheap credit lavished on Wall Street needs to be re-directed to Main Street.”

    Such pleasant-sounding hogwash is popular with “true believer” progressives. Indeed, Ms. Brown’s blog posts are re-printed in many other blogs, all of them helping to keep the masses brainwashed.

    Below is a link to Ms, Brown’s latest bog post. Don’t bother commenting there. Your comment with either be deleted, or you will be flamed. At best you will be ignored.

    By the way, Ms. Brown is currently running for California State Treasurer on the Green Party ticket. The Greens are another faction of the ignorant “true believers” who want deficit reduction. The Greens are cement-headed regarding money mechanics and federal budgets.

    http://ellenbrown.com/2013/12/22/100-years-is-enough-time-to-make-the-fed-a-public-utility/

    Another “true believer” who thinks the federal government runs on taxes and loans (and who thereby supports austerity) maintains a blog called “United Front Against Austerity.”

    http://againstausterity.org/

    Like

  4. Labelling:

    Contrary to what has been stated in previous comments, GMO of the type the Anti-GMO people want labelled, is significantly different from simple cross-breeding.

    In natural cross-breeding (versus human engineered hybridization programs) the two plants or animals are closely related. The genetic transfer tends to produce offspring similar to both parents. When it comes to food safety, if both parents are “safe” in regards to the various proteins being consumed, there is a very high likelihood that the offspring are equally safe. Even when humans interfere with natural cross-breeding to hybridize one plant with another or one animal with another, the two parents are closely related, though perhaps not as close as when such occurs naturally. But just like natural cross-breeding, if both parents of the hybrid are “safe” to eat, the proteins and other substances in the offspring are likely to be just as safe.

    Now, when it comes to trans-genetic manipulation, genetic material from dissimilar species are placed together. Science knows an understands only a tiny fraction of how DNA codes for and regulates the production of proteins and other substances within a body. So when the scientists take a section of DNA from one species and splice it into another species, they can know that the resulting plant or animal will produce the desire protein. However, because a given segment of DNA may code for multiple proteins, and the DNA encoding mechanism may actually have many proteins whose DNA coding overlaps the same section of a chromosome, the scientists do not know what additional proteins may be produced. And recently published, is an article about how DNA is a multi-leveled encoding scheme, with one layer (the one currently best understood) which encodes proteins, and another layer which encodes how specific genes are turned on or off, how the DNA and various proteins will fold/unfold and thus affect their function. So when a foreign gene is spliced into an organism, the ONLY thing we can clearly predict is the specific protein or set of proteins encoded by that section – we cannot predict what will happen to the proteins being coded by neighboring sections of the chromosome, which will overlap the new section, and we have no clue about the second layer effects.

    So with natural cross-breeding and human controlled hybridization, there is little reason to be concerned about overlapping genes or the multiple layers of information – the two organisms are closely related and likely have the same or very similar organization of genes in their chromosomes. The odds of a harmful mutation are small.

    With trans-genetic manipulation, there is a much, much higher likelihood of unknown and potentially harmful mutations. Indeed it is almost guaranteed. The new proteins created by the resulting organism need to be cataloged and assessed for both short and long term safety. But to my knowledge the FDA has not mandated or performed a single safety test with these trans-genetic organisms.

    Like

  5. Rodger: First, no Kucinich doesn’t seem to grasp the current status of our countries monetary sovereignty, non the less his bill’s proposals effectively legislate the country as the issuer of currency in order to achieve many of the same goals as MMT prescribes , full employment, federally stimulated infrastructure modernization,social safety net sustainability, and banking reform. Though i am not so sure MMT or MMR and Dennis’s banking reforms are on the same wavelength. Kind of sad that an actual bill brought up for consideration doesnt quite comprehend the operational mechanics of our current banking system , referring to the misunderstood fractional reserve framework and resulting money multiplier effect practiced a generation ago. Though i am reasonably certain MMT and like proponents would favor the fed brought in under the umbrella of the Treasury, which needs legislation to accomplish, the rest of Kucinich’s goals are easily obtainable now, without bicameral overhaul of our monetary system, outside of his banking reforms, which seem patronizingly irrelevant and antiquated. Sort of a mute proposition, or a conundrum , if you really think about it. To pass his bill, progressive political will and its harbinger , education ,needs attention, but if this political will is there to pass such a bill,along with the knowledge inherent in understanding any utility, than why cant these same intelligent progressive populists realize we’re already monetarily sovereign, and act accordingly. At the end of the day it is either hot air pandering your big lie theory, or disenchanting ignorance. It would certainly be fun to interview him through a knowledgeable intermediary, though unlikely.
    Your GMO essay is right up my alley. Before i go any further, this populist outcry over genetically modified food products is ,the result of disinformation and misinformation. Selective breeding , a slower variant of genetic modification, has been going on for thousands of years, and should be quite obviously a red herring. The big question surrounds what level of potentially carcinogenic chemicals are being introduced to our food supply , like those from Messonto’s menu, such that the genetic codes of crops we consume are tweaked to remain viable under otherwise toxic coditions, so the profits of big agriculture can balloon. Eating a genetically modified biologic isn’t in and of itself the danger, but the conditions placed upon the food that the organism was genetically modified to tolerate.
    Now i’ll get to where the concept of monetary sovereignty , in my view anyhow, has the potential to help alleviate massive suffering the world over. The big lie you guys refer to regarding misinformation insuring an ever expanding wealth gap, also applies in similar fashion perpetuating the ignorance allowing for intensive corporate factory farm industries outrageous profits ,relative to inherent externality’s , like human health, expanding environmental and ecological degradation , as well as intolerable animal abuse. The western style animal product diet exported globally will decimate the natural resources we ultimately all depend upon for existence , eventually selfishness, ignorance , and cruelty , pervasive our food sourcing industries, will eliminate the practical need for any type of indirect monetary system . Of course this reality only exposes itself once you understand the irrationality of meat consumption on the global scale. The necessity of consuming it debunked, and the environmental cost of this unethical practice understood. GMO food costs pale in comparison, though ironically its very purpose is to expand the crop output of grains to feed the expanding animal protein sources harvested, which are also genetically modified to be sustained from a food source unnatural to their nutritional needs. The environmental impacts of mono-cultured crops would be far less if directly fed to humans, and not uneconomically and indirectly diverted through animal products.
    As in all social movements attacking industry excesses, the job losses associated with the fixes, along with the funding source needed to provoke change, is undoubtedly perplexing. But after grasping monetary sovereignty , change no longer depends explicitly on marketable solutions, many times virtually impossible because of monopoly and or unobtainable economic scale. You could classify me as an animal rights fanatic, but i suppose anybody going against the grain of accepted behavior is a fanatic in their realm. I was a race horse trainer and driver for many years. Though i appreciated their sentience and enjoyed the interaction with these noble creatures, i was inexcusably ignorant of the incredible abuse prevalent at the end of these horses careers , usually resulting from injury. Finally i woke up, and conscience demanded i stop racing horses, even though i loved doing it. True it took this depression for my personal finances to be decimated in order to introspectively examine our monetary system and my involvement, which i’m sure most comfortable people dont do. I stopped racing because i was no longer able to minimally take financial responsibility for my own horses. Sure i could profit from running them into the ground , than” salvage “them, but this was simply wrong and immoral. Luckily i still had a small parasitic wholesaling business to provide for me, but i lost my identity and friendships from the racing industry.
    After a few years investigating the causes of our financial meltdown and learning the truth about how our monetary system operates, i have come to the determination , that even though perception is the ultimate arbitrate of reality,correlating them closer together requires understanding monetary realism , which is the surest way to promote benevolence hedging humanities excesses in the pursuit of profit. I just need advice figuring out how to help pass this rather illuminating message allowing positive change, as well as correcting the disinformation nefariously perpetuating market fundamentalism, or wealth gap disparity and perpetuation.

    Like

    1. Larry Silber is correct. I liked Dennis Kucinich a lot, but he did not understand Monetary Sovereignty.

      Kucinich’s “End the Fed” bill (H.R. 2990: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011) sought to merge the Fed with the Treasury.

      Kucinich devised this bill (which died) because he falsely assumed that all money in our economy comes from the Federal Reserve. For Kucinich, if the Treasury could issue money directly (which the Treasury already DOES), then we would have money to rebuild our national infrastructure, pay off the “national debt,” make Social Security “sustainable,” and so on. Kucinich’s bill also sought to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money (which the Congress already HAS).

      These things already exist, and yet we still have the Big Lie that the US government is like a private person, and that the “national debt” is a “crisis.” This Big Lie would continue even if we merged the Fed with the Treasury. Indeed, people who want this merger are people who support the Big Lie by refusing to understand Monetary Sovereignty.

      They want the Treasury to create its money out of thin air, and not borrow its money from the Fed. They do not realize that this already happens when the US government spends (e.g. dispenses Social Security benefits).

      They want the Fed to be less independent. They do not realize that the Fed is answerable to the US Congress.

      They want the Fed to be part of the Executive Branch (i.e. part of the Treasury)? How would this help the 99%? The executive branch is headed by Obama, who despises the 99%.

      Folks, there can be no money system without banks, since actual “money” exists only in banks. (I said money, not currency.) If we merge the Fed with the Treasury, then we will still need a central bank. So what’s the point?

      The Fed deals in bank matters, and in monetary policy (i.e. playing with interest rates to control inflation). Meanwhile, Congress and the President oversee fiscal matters (government spending). If we merge the two, what is the point? Nothing would change.

      THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE FED, BUT MASS BRAINWASHING.

      Repeat…

      THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE FED, BUT MASS BRAINWASHING.

      No matter how badly the masses suffer from austerity, their wails of agony can be silenced by asking them, “Do you want the government to create as much money as it wants, at will, for any purpose?”

      “NO!” the masses cry. (Even though the government already does this.) “That would cause “hyper-inflation! It would cause the ‘national debt’ to become even worse! The ‘takers’ would take even more!”

      Ah, so you want more austerity, right?

      “Yes!” cry the masses. “Austerity for everyone! Except me.”

      That, boys and girls, is the problem. Not the Fed, but mass stupidity and selfishness. This is what we must somehow overcome.

      Like

      1. excellent comments, q!! do you have a blog? if not, you should!

        that said, i have to agree with golfer above–this “new” genetic engineering is totally different from “natural” genetic engineering and that which farmers & botanists have been doing for millenia now.

        i DO believe it would be helpful to most people if we had gmo-labeling for very reasons you cite above–an increase in public awareness.

        Like

        1. While I have no objection to GMO labeling, I wonder about the result. More expensive non-GMO foods as is the case with non-organic foods??

          Also, many foods are made with multiple ingredients. For instance, Reese’s Puffs Cereal contains: Whole grain corn, sugar, Reese’s Peanut Butter (peanuts, sugar, monoglycerides, peanut oil, salt, molasses, corn starch), dextrose, corn meal, corn starch, corn syrup, rice bran and/or canola oil, salt, Hershey’s cocoa, tricalcium phosphate, red 40, yellows 5 & 6, blue 1 and other color added, trisodium phosphate, artificial flavor, TBHQ and BHT added to preserve freshness.

          What should one make of the possibility that the corn meal and rice are GMO, or partly GMO — and some came from China?

          I’m not sure it benefits the public to know “everything.” It reminds me of a huge contract with the important stuff buried in the fine print.

          So the question becomes: What should be revealed and what need not be revealed? How can the consumer be protected, while not being buried under a mountain of information?

          Like

        2. I think “everything” should be available. More information makes the market more like the theoretical “perfect” market. Maybe only to look up on the web, not necessarily all on the box (do you really have Reese’s Puff cereal in your house, or did you look it up on the web?). It would have to be conveniently available at point of sale, though. Maybe a tablet in each aisle. For some people, some fairly obscure information could be critical, because of allergies.

          Non-GMO would probably be more expensive, as are organics. Probably most of the genetic modifications, like disease resistance, are done to raise yield, produce more for less money.

          Like

        3. Is there any scientific data on the effect of GMO foods on health? Has anyone, anywhere proven a relationship between GMO food and sickness? Does anyone think starving people would reject GMO food? Let’s give the starving people of the world all the GMO food they want and sit back and watch what happens to them empirically. Thoughts?

          Like

        4. yes, tetra,

          there is evidence of adverse effects of GMOs on health in humans and animals. i’ll do some looking around and provide links later.

          Like

        5. @tetrahedron720 – There is very little publicly available data on the safety (or lack of safety) for GMO foods. The information provided by the manufactures to regulatory agencies always claims that it is at least as safe as any other food. However, there is an obvious conflict of interest when the regulated party gives regulators favorable information.

          A researcher in Europe, independently performed the same sort of experiments that Monsanto performed to prove the “safety” of their GMO products. The only difference between the researcher’s work and Monsanto’s is that Monsanto ran their test for a mere 3 months. The researcher ran his test for 2 years – basically to the end of life for the lab rats. The researcher found that the lab rats suffered significantly higher rates of tumors and cancer when on Monsanto’s GMO products versus when they were not.

          I don’t recall the details of the research, but the scientist’s main point is that the GMO producers are not performing adequate safety research. The researcher’s test results were immediately attacked by the pro-GMO lobby, basically the large GMO corporations. His defense: that because he performed his experiment using the same strain of lab rats and using the same test protocols as the GMO producers, but simply ran his tests to the rats’ end of life, rather than a mere 3 months, every complaint the pro-GMO lobby has against his research applies equally well to the GMO producer’s own research!

          Like

  6. in response to tetra’s question above on the science of GMO safety, go to this link and scroll to the bottom:

    http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

    there are references to nearly 60 studies there. as you will see, most of the studies have been done in europe. partially, because, here in the US, the regulatory body (the FDA) has been “captured.” i think i heard once that the current head of the FDA used to work for the biotech firm Monsanto. so, you can imagine how “impartial” he is. another case of the revolving door…

    anyhow, happy reading!! or, in this case, read it and weep!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s