DoubleEgger said:

The GMOs don't really matter. It's the airline chemtrails that's going to kill us all. 

Contrails. 

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

The GMOs don't really matter. It's the airline chemtrails that's going to kill us all. 

Contrails. 

Contrails are condensation trails. Chemtrails are chemical trails that the conspiracy crowd believes in. 

DoubleEgger said:

The GMOs don't really matter. It's the airline chemtrails that's going to kill us all. 

I always thought that was just high-altitude crop dusting.

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

The GMOs don't really matter. It's the airline chemtrails that's going to kill us all. 

Contrails. 

Contrails are condensation trails. Chemtrails are chemical trails that the conspiracy crowd believes in. 

Reply outside the shaded box or it doesn't count . And I knew that my friend, this is the joke thread right?

No, wrong thread. This is about serious stuff.

DMW said:

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

The GMOs don't really matter. It's the airline chemtrails that's going to kill us all. 

Contrails. 

Contrails are condensation trails. Chemtrails are chemical trails that the conspiracy crowd believes in. 

Reply outside the shaded box or it doesn't count . And I knew that my friend, this is the joke thread right?

No, wrong thread. This is about serious stuff.

Oh, well, then Debbie Reynolds died today.  Condolences.

nolaegghead said:

In all seriousness, we can grind up any GMO food and analyze it.  We can get an assay of the types of proteins, sugars, carbs, vitamins, fats, fibers, phytonutrients, minerals, sterols, etc.  The DNA/RNA isn't going to embed into our DNA/RNA and turn us into zombies.

There may be some new compounds, but they're probably found in other foods and most have been studied to death.  There are some chemicals that can cause inflammation, allergies, are analogs to steroids, etc. 

Choosing *what* you eat - your diet - is probably going to have a bigger impact on your health than if it's GMO or not.

That said, the FDA is lobbied hard to not test GMO products (regulation is bad, m'kay) so we really don't know everything we could.

And on the downside, some of these GMO products contaminate the natural products, and then Monsanto (THE DEVIL!) owns it.  Plus they F farmers. 

So it's not all roses.  But the population of the planet needs to be fed, and we need to modify the genetics of food to grow it in an increasingly hostile climate.

I know a bit more than the average person about this topic and I want to clarify the comment about Monsanto and F'ing farmers. You see, I am the Northern North America Reaearch Lead for Monsanto (those of you crying shill now can stop reading but if you would like a real perspective on the facts feel free to read on) and I can tell you that there has never been a real incidence of contamination that ended with a farmer being F'd in any way. Greenpeace and others like to portray the farmer as the victim at the mercy of the giant corporation. First of all, there is still choice and if a farmer chooses to grow non-GMO and save their seed, they can. But not with patented seed that is the same as software, Intellectual property or any other patented item. Plus they choose to grow it for yield, ease of pest control etc. 

Now let's look at one case here in Canada that Greenpeace likes to talk about. Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for growing GMO canola that supposedly "blew in" off a truck. What was not reported was that Mr Schmeiser purchased the seed from a neighbour (proven in court) had he seed cleaned knowing it was not legal (proven in court) and planted 100's of acres of this that all allegedly blew in off a truck. But the media and the non-GMO groups have chosen to ignore all the facts in order portray the David Vs Goliath story. 

On on a more personal note, my neighbour got caught using stolen seed. He met with a rep from Monsanto and they came to an agreement on the spot, the penalty was paid and he still gladly grows Monsanto products and speaks well of the experience. Oh, and this is also true, not one penny of any settlements go to Monsanto profits but rather into a fund which can then be accessed for community improvements. A lot of arenas in Western Canada have new roofs thanks to this fund. Almost every grower who wants to save seed and gets caught has ended in a very professional and positive fashion. 

@nolaegghead
Usually I steer clear of these discussions because I find them frustrating due to the lack of truth and the huge amount of mis-information put there. When I can tell someone has no interest in hearing a different opinion, I don't bother. I'm here to BBQ and learn but I respect a lot of the folks on here so I thought I would offer up the chance for dialogue. I'm proud of what I do and I expect some people to shoot back angry comments towards me. I can sleep at night knowing that if I wasn't 100% confident in the science, the need and the safety I wouldn't have spent over 20 years of my life working to improve the food supply. 

As for the safety of GMOs. It is an interesting conversation that I enjoy having but it's also a long one to do so I will try to make it short. 
All organisms contain DNA so the presence of DNA shouldn't be a concern. The DNA from the food we eat doesn't bind with ours, we don't become carrot people from eating carrots. Same thing. So it's really about what the end products are. Well, DNA codes for the production of proteins in general and proteins are measurable. We can clearly show that there are no differences between oils from Conventional soybeans and oil from GMO soys for example. In the case of BT corn, there is a crystal protein developed that ruptures the gut of the insect but in all mammals,  birds, frankly anything with an acid gut chemistry that breaks down immediately into its constituent amino acids, just like any other protein. If your argument is "yeah but what if....  I am afraid you will not get far with me. We live in a world that can measure to the parts per trillion levels, GMOs are the most researched items in history and not one peer reviewed article has shown any negative effects of the technology.  It is impossible to prove a negative which is something that anti-GMO people fail to realize but life is never without risks. Even should someone want to spend their life living in a cave eating only mushrooms there would be risks. Mankind progresses on the fact that risks and benefits are balanced and nothing can be shown to be without risk. 

The real danger of GMOs is fear and a lack of understanding by the General public. When people label a product as non-GMO there is no scientific basis for doing so and worse, there often isn't a GMO version even available they perpetuate fear and market their product as somehow safer than a product that can't actually be any different. There are so many things that people see and hear today that are just wrong. This is when people will pull out the IIRC study about glyphosate and cancer, a study that has been refuted multiple times and not supported by any world health organization but even were it real, the study states that the use of glyphosate has the same POTENTIAL to cause cancer (and that's the thing that gets missed in the media, it's a study of potential not incidence), same potential as using aloe Vera or working a night shift. Seriously, that's in there for anyone that wants to read it. We live in a world where science is rapidly outpacing the average persons ability to understand it and lack of understanding leads to fear of the unknown. 

Edited for typo. Thumbs were getting very tired. 

@gmac I respect your work at Monsanto...really that F the farmers and satanic Monsanto comment was an inside Joke with DMW - he said off line, "oh boy, wait for the Monsanto is Satan comments". 

I think, outside of that paragraph, I portrayed the GMO products fairly, not taking a side against the science.

Most of the time I just go with "if the media is for it, then I'm against it" and vice versa. Does that make me well-informed or lazy?

No and yes

nolaegghead said:

No and yes

Well, dang. There goes my method for determining who I vote for. 

Don't you just hate having chemicals in your food?

I'm no fan of Monsanto having spent 14+ weeks at Fort McClellan AL Had health and skin issues ever since. The U.S. Army had their NBC School there too. The base is now a Superfund site.

http://www.poisonedveterans.org/?p=178

http://www.chicagonow.com/uncommon-sense/2013/08/toxic-vets-ft-mcclellan-08072013/

JustineCaseyFeldown said:

JohnInCarolina said:

My father was a Chemistry professor.  He used to start every semester of Basic Chem by asking the class "how many of you would eat a pile of chemicals?"  

Of course, almost nobody would raise their hand.  Pile of chemicals?  Yuck.

Then he'd explain to them that food is made from chemicals, just like Soylent green is people.

this is a big one for me.

it's like the frigging "un cured" bacon sold at whole foods.  everyone is amazed it tastes and cooks just like bacon, without being "cured".  of course, the definition of that word they are using is the convenient USDA one, which means cured with nitrites added as a discreet ingredient.

then there's a little asterisk on the package which casually mentions that the only nitrite in the bacon is that which just happend to be naturally occurring in the celery powder that is used in the flavoring.  um... how many people here think of celery when they want bacon?  guessing 'zero'.

the only reason they use celery powder is so that they can add nitrite to the bacon and CURE it.  ...while getting around the USDA definition of the word 'cure'.  it's bvllsh!t.

'natural' chemicals are always better, don't you know?  they are magic.

what's sad is people don't think about it for more than a second, and are happy to assume they are eating healthier bacon (fat and salt notwithstanding)

Objectively, I put forth the argument the "uncured" bacon from Whole Foods is *less* healthy than the typical cured bacon.

First of all, you're right, it is cured.  They are both cured.  'cept the nitrite is from celery powder/extract.  It's still fkn nitrite.

Here's an ingredient list for one of the WF "uncured" bacon products:

Pork, water, brown sugar, sea salt, celery juice powder, lactic acid starter culture.

Here's the list for a typical cured bacon:

Pork, Sugar, Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Erythorbate, Sodium Nitrite.

To the crux of my argument - the typical cured bacon has an anti-oxidant (sodium erythorbate) that inhibits the nitrates from forming nitrosamines, which are powerful carcinogens.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrosamine

Note, the "uncured" bacon does not have any anti-oxidants (lactic acid starter culture is just to reduce the pH).

The "uncured" is less healthy because it is the same cure without the nitrosamine mitigating anti-oxidant added.

When I make bacon, I add an anti-oxidant for this same reason.

nolaegghead said:

They could have added citric acid, which is natural, but I guess it sounds too much like an unnatural chemical.

What do you add? B3-amide?

I have considered adding malic acid for the same reason. I have malic for cider making and since I smoke my bacon with Apple, it just seems a good choice but I haven't done it yet. 
Maybe I will make cider today...??!!!??