| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
55steve
Senior Nomad
Posts: 857
Registered: 4-24-2006
Location: Warner Springs, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
A controversial subject with intelligent thought sharing - this gives me hope.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
As does this ......
Physicists Restart Souped-Up Hadron Collider
http://www.wsj.com/articles/physicists-restart-souped-up-had...
We must develop "new" technology ... in order to solve our current problems
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  | | Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe | | Quote: Originally posted by brewer | | The house passed a bill denying people the right to know. I think that is wrong. You should be able to make a choice between GMO and non-GMO foods
if you want. It's bull$ it. |
Bingo.
This is the only post that addresses the issue. The question is not whether GMOs are safe or not. The question is whether we have a right to know of
their presence. The House has voted to withhold information from the public. I find that outrageous. This is not a question of national security. The
public has a right to know. We are not a police state. This is not the Soviet Union.
The fear must be that some will not purchase the GMOs. That's a right the consumer should have. If the non GMO is more expensive the buyer can decide
how to spend his money.
[Edited on 8-1-2015 by Skipjack Joe] |
Yes that is the original issue and then the subject veered to safety. But the two (labeling and safety) are related. To be the devil's advocate, if
GMOs were in fact safe, wouldn't the labeling be an unnecessary expense borne by the consumer? Also, doesn't labeling imply an unsafe aspect?
And then the third aspect is the disruption to the natural seed supply, as wilderone pointed out, and the fact that farmers that use Monsanto patented
seeds can't save seeds from a harvest to use the next year. They have to buy seeds again. I think that is bulchit too.
[Edited on 8-1-2015 by SFandH] |
The original issue in my first post that started this topic was indeed the right to choose what we put into our bodies. We need labeling and the
government has let us down.
However, as SFandH states, "But the two (labeling and safety) are related." In further discussions, I have given my personal reasons for wanting
(needing) labeling, and also my concerns for safety. In my opinion, Monsanto is poisoning the world for profit.The Roundup factor really puts the
safety issue way over the top!
Others here have eloquently advanced this discussion, and quite civilly, at that. Thank you all.
Many will choose to not worry about any of this and continue to eat all foods. That is their choice. Until my illness, I ate just about anything and
would probably have continued. It is easier to not be concerned; to believe that it can't happen to you. And then the unthinkable happens...it happens
to you.
SFandH said in an earlier post that GMOs are not the only hazard that is lurking in our environment. What in Hell are we doing to this fragile planet?
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Bingo ... that is the really hard question, from "progress"
Given what we are seeing .... it is a "double edged sword"
Again thanks and good to see you're still kicking 
[Edited on 8-2-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
BajaRat
Super Nomad
Posts: 1303
Registered: 3-2-2010
Location: SW Four Corners / Bahia Asuncion BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ready for some salt water with my Tecate
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SFandH |
Naw, come on. People should have the option of avoiding toxic chemicals if they want to.
It may be a little late to make a difference for older people but what about if you had a newborn to feed. Wouldn't you want to know if the first
solid food out of those little jars contains Roundup? Wesson posted it's a known carcinogen and with the new Monsanto seeds farmers can apply it
directly to the crop. Scientific studies have shown it's showing up in the food. This is something new, not a "fact of life". |
Those things are a fact of life because our government put big business before our well being, and yes that's money before ethics.
What this decision has done is hide the potential dangers from those that have a right to know, the paying consumer.
Corn has meant survival in the Americas for thousands of years with great success and would have continued to do so without Monsanto's intervention.
On the contrary corn heirlooms are becoming increasingly difficult to find without traces of GMO contamination here in the USA where our politicians
have allowed these practices.
By removing the diversity in food production we are putting all our proverbial eggs in one basket, big ag's basket. We prefer to put our food supply
in many baskets and that"s without the use of toxic pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Without disclosing the contents of our food
products we have removed one more freedom from the public's arsenal. One more freedom from choice seems to be the trend for the officials we have
elected to rule us.
GMO's are destroying our heritage and heirlooms. And I personally find the health implications of the toxins they allow to be introduced and found
acceptable in our environment and bodies to be shameful.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
All pesticides and/or Economic Poisions require Registration with first the EPA and then in many cases with State Regulatory Agencies
Prior to registration, R & D and/or a Data Package SHALL be submitted for review, prior to the granting of Registration by the EPA and in many
cases with states
Additionally "tolerances" are set for residues on Food products
"A study to determine chronic exposures of mammals to glyphosate observed no cellular changes in mice fed glyphosate at a concentration up to 300 ppm
in the diet for 18 months (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1981). A 2-year chronic study conducted using Sprague-Dawley rats (males) fed 0, 89, 362,
and 940 mg/kg/day of glyphosate observed effects only in the high-dose group, indicating that for this study, the no observable effects limit (NOEL)
for systemic toxicity is 362 mg/kg/day (8000 ppm), and the lowest observable effects limit (LOEL) is 940 mg/kg/day (20,000 ppm)( (Franz et al. 1997).
When glyphosate is formulated as in Roundup®, Vision®, or Accord®, it becomes slightly more toxic to animal species due to the presence of
surfactants. A study by Folmar et al., 1979, compared the toxicity of glyphosate and a formulation product to larvae, and found that the formulation
was more toxic. The EC50 of the formulation was 13 ppm compared to an EC50 of 55 ppm for glyphosate. In a study conducted for the U.S. EPA’s RED, the
formulated product MONO818 was found to be slightly toxic to the invertebrate Daphnia magna and moderately toxic to rainbow trout."
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf
It should be noted, that most "growers" do not use Roundup directly to most crops ... due to the "mode of action" of the AI ... Active Ingredient ...
which is a non selective herbicide resulting in the death of the plant
The material is used with great care in CA ... do to the "patch work" of various crops adjacent to sites of application which may be damaged from its
use .... Not to mention the COST of the material ... back when it first came out ... It was one of the most expensive products on the "market" at the
time .. until the patient dropped off ... Monsanto made a bundle off it while they had the patient ... and being a forward looking Corporation ... saw
the handwriting on the wall back in the 70s ... and started doing work on the "genetic" side of things with all the "majors" buying up seed companies
as fast as they could ...
Many saw it as "positive" ... I was in a minority .. as I did NOT .. go figure
Would again say that overall exposure to the material posses low "immediate risk" ... However, from the toxicological standpoint .. the impact on
future generations of humans, is an open question IMHO .. when one considers the amount of "chemistry" we are associated with, at this time, in our
daily lives ...
Not sure what effect Roundup and "Jack Daniels" ... et al .. will have on one, I'm still kicking 
Just lucky .. I guess 
The call was made by the Supreme Court ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty
[Edited on 8-2-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's good to know there was only slight to moderate toxicity with rats, fleas, and rainbow trout........
Also,
It should be noted, that most "growers" do not use Roundup directly to most crops ... due to the "mode of action" of the AI ... Active Ingredient
... which is a non selective herbicide resulting in the death of the plant.
No longer true with the Roundup resistant Monsanto seeds.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-monsantos-roundup-pestici...
[Edited on 8-3-2015 by SFandH]
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Typically the "majors" look at the market they are making a before committing R & D on a new product
And use the same rule of thumb most business use, the 80/20 rule, 80% of a business comes from 20% of their sales and/or market they sell to
They do not attempt in most cases to obtain registration for ALL food crops ... as the costs don't pencil ... and Sec 18's can be requested under law
to address specific needs ... rather than redo an entire data package and/or additional R & D ..
I'm not for GMO seeds ... for a number of reasons ... however, in the case of this particular chemical used in crop production .. the overall risk
from cancer would still appear very low, as it is still classified as a Class C Carcinogen ..
http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail =EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-0009
And yes, our: water, soil and air is impacted by this chemical along with ALL chemicals used in the production of Food and Fiber ... it is back to
the "risk" to health and/or environment as identified in the "field" real time while at the same time insuring we can keep the production of Food and
Fiber at the same, if not greater levels to feed, cloth and comply with treaties we® have other Nations in the World
It's is a tough nut to crack ... farming and chemicals while insuring production with acceptable risk to Health and the Environment
Think this materials usage may be going down a bit in CA, given the drought ... but then, food production will be going down too ...
sorry the link has characters which end up giving a smiley .. cut and paste to get to the report
[Edited on 8-3-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Widely Used Herbicide Linked to Cancer
From Scientific American, I think a reputable source.
"Glyphosate is the world’s most widely produced herbicide, by volume. It is used extensively in agriculture and is also found in garden products in
many countries. "
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbic...
But as Chuckie said, we have the option of finding special stores that sell organic produce and paying a higher price. 
|
|
|
bajabuddha
Banned
Posts: 4024
Registered: 4-12-2013
Location: Baja New Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Always cranky unless medicated
|
|
If it weren't for Roundup i'd have a goat-head farm.
GMO's you're stuck with, unless you have a good income, a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's in your larger town.
I'm not going to be narcissistic enough to worry about it, because none of us are getting out of here alive anyway. If the produce looks fresh and
the price is right, I buy what I see when I shop. Same with the meats. Isn't there enough in your daily lives to give you the Hershey squirts
without worrying about the boogeyman? In the event you have a health problem, especially an immune system disorder, I fully agree with 'smart(er)
shopping. Otherwise, spend more time enjoying what's in front of you than what's behind you.
My tonight's pot roast, spuds, carrots and onions (AND home-made gravy that I do declare is fairly scrumptious) came from a cow and the ground; the
rest, I .... DON'T ...... CARE.
I've had too many 'debates' that became very short-lived on this subject while the people who are opponents to GMO's rant and rail while they put out
their cigarettes.
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
86 - 45*
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
"opponents to GMO's rant and rail while they put out their cigarettes. "
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
While enjoying their distilled spirits!
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok, ok. I'll stop reading/posting about this stuff.
Later on when I have a fresh pack of smokes and a 12 pack of ice cold Tecate Light I'll pick a baja related topic to write about.
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | Ok, ok. I'll stop reading/posting about this stuff.
Later on when I have a fresh pack of smokes and a 12 pack of ice cold Tecate Light I'll pick a baja related topic to write about. |
You just did ...
WOW an ice chest of beer sounds good to me, along with a good cigar ... my weekends never end
[Edited on 8-4-2015 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5898
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here are some facts on MonSATAN (hahahaha) and GMO's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tc8gtZgGko
I'm pro science. Follow the evidence no matter where it leads.
Did you hear the interview with Bill Nye recently where he changes his mind on GMO's? It's a great listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIPeOuSiXu4
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/bill-nye-gmos-chang...
So much misinformation out there.
Here's a rebuttal to some of their claims:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmos-and-making...
"Dedicated anti-science groups engage in a number of methods to maintain their propaganda upstream against the scientific evidence. It’s actually not
difficult- people are generally very good at motivated reasoning. We can demonize or lionize anything.
Methods include dismissing scientific studies whose conclusions you don’t like, supporting low quality studies you do like, misinterpreting and
distorting other studies, and of course cherry picking. Sometimes, however, dedicated activists seem to literally make up studies out of whole cloth,
or ideological scientists perform dubious studies to create fodder for their side.
This week on the SGU we interview Kevin Folta (the show will be published tomorrow) about some of his experiences with anti-GMO activists who have no
problem making up the science to advance their ideological agenda. The more I look into anti-GMO activism the more I realize that the anti-vaccine
movement has nothing on them when it comes to pseudoscience. Their methods are identical. The only real difference is that anti-GMO propaganda is much
more mainstream.
The latest episode concerns Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who recently published a study claiming that there are high levels of formaldehyde in GMO soy. I
did a Goggle search for “GMO Soy Formaldehyde” and the first hit was this: GMO Soy Accumulates Carcinogenic Formaldehyde: Game-Changing Study. The
anti-GMO crowd is making a lot of hay with their latest “proof” that all GMOs are evil.
Let’s take a closer look at Ayyadurai and his study. Kavin Senapathy at the Genetic Literacy Project has some more information. She notes that
Ayyadurai has four degrees from MIT, but none in food science or genetics. This is not a quibble – it is very common for ideological scientists to be
operating outside of their area of expertise.
Much more importantly, however, it turns out that Ayyadurai’s study is not an analysis of GMO soy, it is a computer model. That’s it. He made a
computer model that predicts that GMO soy should accumulate formaldehyde using what is called “systems biology.”
Kevin explains on his own blog that such computer models are only as good as the inputs. If the assumed data is not robust and sufficient, computer
models based on that data are worthless. It is also easy to manipulate the inputs to create a desired result.
In other words, Ayyadurai’s study is utter crap. Kevin writes:
“The bottom line is, corn is probably the most biochemically dissected plants in terms of composition. Soy too. There is no evidence ever published or
otherwise reported in a legit place that shows a difference in formaldehyde between GM and non-GM varieties of anything. These authors could have
tested their prediction, and maybe they did, but there is no evidence of formaldehyde ever reported.”
They never tested their predictions, which means their model has not been validated in any way. Further, the predictions made by their model go
against what scientific evidence we already have.
I should further note that formaldehyde, while scary sounding, is a natural byproduct of metabolism and exists in many foods. Here is a table listing
the amount of formaldehyde in common foods. It’s nothing to worry about – go ahead and eat those chitake mushrooms.
The paper itself is poor science. The authors do not spell out details critical to the analysis. Further, there are conflicts of interest galore
(anti-science groups only seem to mention those when they apply to the government or corporations they don’t like). As Kevin reports:
First, what do we know about International Center for Integrative Systems? Certainly sounds impressive! Turns out it is a 501(c)3 non-profit
organization, surprise, started by the lead author. They have a variety of projects, including one that seeks to define standards for raw and organic
food. A little poking around the website and the agenda is showing.
Conflicts of interest are OK, apparently, if the interest is yours. We see this among anti-vaxxers as well, who seem totally unbothered by Andrew
Wakefield’s blatant conflicts.
Kevin has offered to actually test the levels of formaldehyde in GMO soy. This would be another test of the computer model. Ayyadurai so far has
refused to participate – he seems completely uninterested in testing his model directly.
Conclusion
Good skeptics should be concerned first and foremost with method. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs), it is dedication to using
methods that are fair, valid, logical, and evidence-based when evaluating any empirical claim.
I understand that some people have legitimate claims about the food industry and Big Agriculture. Despite the fact that I commonly address
anti-corporate pseudoscience, I do not consider myself a defender of corporations. I am trying to defend good science and skeptical reasoning. In fact
I think that corporations generally have highly effective and well-funded departments dedicated to motivated reasoning and lobbying the government
toward their interests. We need effective watchdogs and we need to call industries and corporations on their BS.
That is why pseudoscientific campaigns cause even more harm – they actual hamper effective industry watchdogs by tainting the enterprise with
pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. They suck all the air out of the room, making it more difficult to have a good conversation about effective
regulations, because we have to spend our time countering rank nonsense and misinformation.
When it comes to the issue of GMO I feel like we don’t yet have our head above water. Greenpeace, the massive organic lobby, and other anti-GMO groups
have dominated the propaganda for too long, and they have effectively confused the public over GMO issues.
Skeptics, however, are leading the way toward change. As Kevin pointed out in the interview for this week, 10 years ago he would be the lone voice of
reason in the comments section of an article on GMOs. Now an army of skeptical nerds will often get there before he does, effectively making the
points that need to be made.
But we are not there yet."
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Some just don't care about those concerns ...
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
If I remember correctly, the bars in Vietnam used to add formeldahyde (sp) to beer? If so , those of us were there, are immune....Unless of course you
were in the Air Force...They generally never left the base and drank tea (organic) with their Pinkies lifted....
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ateo | Here are some facts on MonSATAN (hahahaha) and GMO's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tc8gtZgGko
I'm pro science. Follow the evidence no matter where it leads.
Did you hear the interview with Bill Nye recently where he changes his mind on GMO's? It's a great listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIPeOuSiXu4
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/bill-nye-gmos-chang...
So much misinformation out there.
Here's a rebuttal to some of their claims:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/gmos-and-making...
"Dedicated anti-science groups engage in a number of methods to maintain their propaganda upstream against the scientific evidence. It’s actually not
difficult- people are generally very good at motivated reasoning. We can demonize or lionize anything.
Methods include dismissing scientific studies whose conclusions you don’t like, supporting low quality studies you do like, misinterpreting and
distorting other studies, and of course cherry picking. Sometimes, however, dedicated activists seem to literally make up studies out of whole cloth,
or ideological scientists perform dubious studies to create fodder for their side.
This week on the SGU we interview Kevin Folta (the show will be published tomorrow) about some of his experiences with anti-GMO activists who have no
problem making up the science to advance their ideological agenda. The more I look into anti-GMO activism the more I realize that the anti-vaccine
movement has nothing on them when it comes to pseudoscience. Their methods are identical. The only real difference is that anti-GMO propaganda is much
more mainstream.
The latest episode concerns Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, who recently published a study claiming that there are high levels of formaldehyde in GMO soy. I
did a Goggle search for “GMO Soy Formaldehyde” and the first hit was this: GMO Soy Accumulates Carcinogenic Formaldehyde: Game-Changing Study. The
anti-GMO crowd is making a lot of hay with their latest “proof” that all GMOs are evil.
Let’s take a closer look at Ayyadurai and his study. Kavin Senapathy at the Genetic Literacy Project has some more information. She notes that
Ayyadurai has four degrees from MIT, but none in food science or genetics. This is not a quibble – it is very common for ideological scientists to be
operating outside of their area of expertise.
Much more importantly, however, it turns out that Ayyadurai’s study is not an analysis of GMO soy, it is a computer model. That’s it. He made a
computer model that predicts that GMO soy should accumulate formaldehyde using what is called “systems biology.”
Kevin explains on his own blog that such computer models are only as good as the inputs. If the assumed data is not robust and sufficient, computer
models based on that data are worthless. It is also easy to manipulate the inputs to create a desired result.
In other words, Ayyadurai’s study is utter crap. Kevin writes:
“The bottom line is, corn is probably the most biochemically dissected plants in terms of composition. Soy too. There is no evidence ever published or
otherwise reported in a legit place that shows a difference in formaldehyde between GM and non-GM varieties of anything. These authors could have
tested their prediction, and maybe they did, but there is no evidence of formaldehyde ever reported.”
They never tested their predictions, which means their model has not been validated in any way. Further, the predictions made by their model go
against what scientific evidence we already have.
I should further note that formaldehyde, while scary sounding, is a natural byproduct of metabolism and exists in many foods. Here is a table listing
the amount of formaldehyde in common foods. It’s nothing to worry about – go ahead and eat those chitake mushrooms.
The paper itself is poor science. The authors do not spell out details critical to the analysis. Further, there are conflicts of interest galore
(anti-science groups only seem to mention those when they apply to the government or corporations they don’t like). As Kevin reports:
First, what do we know about International Center for Integrative Systems? Certainly sounds impressive! Turns out it is a 501(c)3 non-profit
organization, surprise, started by the lead author. They have a variety of projects, including one that seeks to define standards for raw and organic
food. A little poking around the website and the agenda is showing.
Conflicts of interest are OK, apparently, if the interest is yours. We see this among anti-vaxxers as well, who seem totally unbothered by Andrew
Wakefield’s blatant conflicts.
Kevin has offered to actually test the levels of formaldehyde in GMO soy. This would be another test of the computer model. Ayyadurai so far has
refused to participate – he seems completely uninterested in testing his model directly.
Conclusion
Good skeptics should be concerned first and foremost with method. Skepticism is not a set of beliefs (or non-beliefs), it is dedication to using
methods that are fair, valid, logical, and evidence-based when evaluating any empirical claim.
I understand that some people have legitimate claims about the food industry and Big Agriculture. Despite the fact that I commonly address
anti-corporate pseudoscience, I do not consider myself a defender of corporations. I am trying to defend good science and skeptical reasoning. In fact
I think that corporations generally have highly effective and well-funded departments dedicated to motivated reasoning and lobbying the government
toward their interests. We need effective watchdogs and we need to call industries and corporations on their BS.
That is why pseudoscientific campaigns cause even more harm – they actual hamper effective industry watchdogs by tainting the enterprise with
pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. They suck all the air out of the room, making it more difficult to have a good conversation about effective
regulations, because we have to spend our time countering rank nonsense and misinformation.
When it comes to the issue of GMO I feel like we don’t yet have our head above water. Greenpeace, the massive organic lobby, and other anti-GMO groups
have dominated the propaganda for too long, and they have effectively confused the public over GMO issues.
Skeptics, however, are leading the way toward change. As Kevin pointed out in the interview for this week, 10 years ago he would be the lone voice of
reason in the comments section of an article on GMOs. Now an army of skeptical nerds will often get there before he does, effectively making the
points that need to be made.
But we are not there yet." |
Thank you Ateo, and all others...
Skeptic? Of course! I am a damaged skeptic, both medically and from the anti-science crowd. Being right tempers the damage though, (or is that,
damages the temper?). 
In no way do I criticize anybody who chooses a different dietary path for themselves. It is good that they have a choice. It is more complicated for
me though. I don't always have a clear choice because the government hides the truth by not labeling
GMO content. 
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5898
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Tony, always nice to see your posts. You are such a gentleman.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
