• If you have a question about commercial production or the hot sauce business, please post in Startup Help.

GMO - yes or "hell no" ?? and why?

Heisenberg said:
I have no problem with the labeling.  What it will accomplish at the very least, is some level of protection against frivolous lawsuits.  Look at McDonald's labeling of their coffee: "CAUTION, HOT".  I think for 99.9% of the population this would be an unnecessary statement, but there's always someone who will try to take advantage of a situation and say that they were not informed.
 
On a side note, I do notice some companies taking advantage of labeling their products as 'organic'.  Organic products in a supermarket are almost always more expensive.  And sure some of that extra cost is due to the lower crop yields from not using pesticides, fertilizers, GMOs, etc.  However, it makes you wonder to what extent some companies will abuse the term 'organic' just to inflate the price.  As my wife and I say, eating healthy costs more.
 
 
organic food is more expensive for a number of reasons, the increase cost of production is ... from what i understand not the primary reason. 
its just much more profitable on the smallish sale.
 its a new market, and demand is pretty high and the supply is lower at the moment than it could be, and cannot grow at the pace at which demand for organic is growing.
 
this tends to drives the prices up, but as this market matures, they should come back down somewhat.  organic farming also is subject to increases in productivity, organic farmers in many ways are more willing to embrace new technology than conventional farmers.
however at the same time, gmo food stuffs and modern conventional agriculture techniques and practices should bring prices of conventional  crops down even more so.
 
it should also be considered that the organic crowd tends to be much more price insensitive with respect to food. people tend to choose organic only when their food budget is small with respect to their household income.  its simply a semi luxury good for many.
 
in my micro econ class this was discussed ad nausium from what i remember.
 
queequeg152 - 
 
"the argument for long term studies is specious. "long term" studies are for real problems, why spend millions studying something for decades that has hitherto presented 0 evidence for even mild malady? it makes even less sense today, after 20 years of solid gmo use, with zero credible evidence of harm."
 
Ah yes, back to the "Companies used you as guinea pigs for years and you hardly noticed, so that means they're perfectly safe." logic. Hey, that's much the same logic that cigarette companies held to for years with their notion "There's just so many factors involved, we can't definitively say that -our- chemicals are the issue!" .. while they set up non-profit organizations to prove that it "might" be something else, and to lobby the government endlessly to convince them of that. Sorry, the method constantly saying "Hey, look over there at that!" to distract people from focusing on the science and having it clearly & concisely tested, is not actually proving the safety - despite all the money that gets pumped in to claim it is. What that is, is a psychological gambit of "How long can we distract them?". Thus why cigarette packages have to be labeled - in the long term their gambit failed.
 
"long term studies are for oil spills on an eco system, or the effects of air pollution on frogs or what have you... real credible demonstrable problems."
 
.. So, can the issue of, say, the -millions- of people that have become dependent on anti-depressants and other drugs be excused because in the short term the companies & doctors pushing them didn't see dramatic side-effects, lasting side-effects? (same goes from defective birth control, etc, since you made mention of those)
 
How are you deciding to differentiate between deciding which items and their long term effects are worthy of study and which aren't? You mention that studies on environment and effects of oil spills are credible, but then you list several that - because the long-term effects aren't immediately apparent - somehow aren't. So.. "If you don't see it, it didn't happen"?
 
Yes, your argument regarding technology has some value to it - about weighing the pro's and con's of timing and when to release technology to the masses - but that's a balancing act. It doesn't negate the value and need for long term studies.
 
Sometimes "necessity" can override - i.e. if there is a pandemic of illness and scientists will be rushed to find a solution. When that necessity isn't so pressing, though, scientists will do what they can to put in the -time- to make sure the science is done right - and that includes long-term studies. Even if they do get pressed to hastily release technology (whether from necessity - i.e. illness, from pressure for quick solutions (i.e. the latest mobile phones), or from greed), scientists will still want to look at & monitor the long terms effects - if they are truly dedicated to the science and making it the best it can be (including looking out for side-effects).
 
Yes, there is a strong need for food in countries that have poverty - i.e. in Africa, so that is one example where GMO's -can- be of value. But here in North America? Yes, you can argue that without them having been put into our food system (without our knowledge) "x" amount of time ago that we wouldn't have near as much food as we have now.. But that's a poor argument. If anything, that means that the cheap food (such as McDonald's) wouldn't be so abundant and people in already-well-fed countries (such as ours) would very well still be more focused on fresh produce & the like - and less on fast food, frozen foods, etc.
 
Simply put, there -is- enough food in this world, as plenty studies have shown (especially with the amount we waste in North America) to feed all the people in the world. Pushing GMO's in "developed" countries is more about profit than about -need-. So, to that end, I'm sure it would be easy to give that time for the long-term studies -before- submitting us to them. Those companies not willing to wait? Okay, add a few short words on the label. All the B.S. aside - it's a few short words that in -no way- are costing them anymore money.
 
What -will- cost money is having them admit to using, potentially unstable (not properly tested for side-effects) ingredients - and that's the people the are already submitting to their products having to foot the bill until the government admits to the fact and possibly makes them pay up.. And even then, they still have their foothold and are raking in the billions. Monsanto is far from going poor. They can tell their graphic designs to add a few words easy enough - I know, because I -am- a graphic designer. 2 seconds. Done. And then it's off to the printers when the next rounds of labels are made (since they're -already- using the GMO's - so it's not -new- ingredients) ;)
 
What it comes down to is this:
 
Science dictates that trial and error are required to prove facts, and science also recognizes that factors can always change and new evidence can be discovered. Based on that, especially when dealing with manipulating life-itself, long-term studies are the farthest from arbitrary - quite the opposite, in fact. The fact is that life changes and -evolves-. Life always has an "x" factor. Otherwise, it wouldn't be life.
 
Genetically modified organisms are living beings, and as a result, inherit this factor, fall under the rule of change, and a result - can and will; with your assistance or without. Long-term, ongoing studies would precisely help -limit- potential changes that may occur in them that could be hazardous to the health of people.
 
In short - long term, ongoing studies are a necessity if you want to even attempt to ensure the safety of our ongoing health, because the products will continue to change -by itself - unlike, say, inanimate objects/material (such as mobile phones, oil, drugs).
 
You can't "set it and forget it".
 
Just like growing our peppers - if you leave them in the wild, they'll go astray.
 
queequeg152 said:
 
so freedom means you get the right to mandate any arbitrary food label? believe it or not, you do have the right to choose what you eat already. organic labeled food should to my knowledge contain little to none gmo ingredients.
 
you are "free" to eat any products you want, you are free to vote with your dollars. you are not free to mandate labeling for non health centric ( and i would argue political)  reasons however.
 
the argument for long term studies is specious. "long term" studies are for real problems, why spend millions studying something for decades that has hitherto presented 0 evidence for even mild malady? it makes even less sense today, after 20 years of solid gmo use, with zero credible evidence of harm.
 
long term studies are for oil spills on an eco system, or the effects of air pollution on frogs or what have you... real credible demonstrable problems.
 
should cell phones have been banned untill we can do a 30 year study to make sure they do not give us brain cancer? after all we are just being safe right? i mean the public has a right to be safe.
 
we should not have allowed the use of chest x rays, or MRI's  pending a 30 year study either, the reasoning same as above.
 
hell birth control right? no exogenous progesterone until a 30 year study has been conducted, any risk even a unfathomably small one is far too much for the public to bear.
 
the benefit of GMO far and away outweighs the miniscule threat to human health. its hilarious to me that so many dismiss this. i seriously think that people are too far removed these days, from the food supply. even very agressive organic sustainable gardener type people are guilty of this.
 
It would become clear just how much pesticide is being sprayed on conventional crops, and how badly the runoff of fertilizers  can contaminate surface water sources...  if people could live as a farmer for a few years.
Freedom gives me the right to choose, nothing more and nothing less, even though this isn`t arbitrary to the rest of the world.
 
"To my knowledge" See, even you don`t actually know for sure what`s in organic food. Maybe a label would help?
 
A specious argument? Seriously? It is quite the opposite in fact. But hey, the FDA has never ever make a cock-up ever, has it? The public has never acted as a guinea pig for anything ever, right? 
 
Shouting out examples of something we should have studied more, like cell phones, is a great tactic. Do you happen to be a magician? One where slight of hand or slight of word is the name of the game?
 
Examples like the use of Lead paint, perhaps, or Asbestos or Thalidomide or Vioxx. There are a huge number of these examples. See, I can bring up real examples where the public was used as a Guinea Pig that were bad and where there was actual harm was caused, rather than shout out random misdirections that aren`t even closely linked. Like the increased risk of cancer and stroke to women taking female hormones or in hormone replacement therapy. Oh wait, that was one of yours. 
 
Ah, so any dissenting opinion to yours is hilarious? Way to go. 
 
Very interesting read guys. Thanks. Seeing as I'm on my way out for brews I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.

I think it was spidey's uncle who said

"With great power comes great responsibility."

I think this is it - we live in a society where

Greed > The Wellbeing of the World

and

The Long Road < Zero to Hero

I don't think we have the responsibility as a species to be mucking with this stuff (as beneficial as I do believe it can be) at this point in time. Once we --if we-- figure out that money, wealth, and capitalism is the wrong road, then I'm all for it.


/soapbox.
 
This was written in 2003, which to my obviously bad math, is less than 20 years ago.
 

Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks of GM Food?

  1. Arpad Pusztai*, Consultant Biologist (formerly, The Rowett Research Institute)


  1. Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
  1. *6 Ashley Park North, Aberdeen AB10 6SF, Scotland, UK. Phone/fax: 44-(0)1224-594954. E-mail: a.pusztai@freenet.co.uk



Abstract
Nearly ten years after the introduction of GM foodcrops there are still only a handful of published studies about their safety. Independent studies are even fewer, moreover, no peer-reviewed publications exist in which the results of clinical investigations on the possible effects of GM food on human health are described. Even though the evaluation of the safety or possible toxicity of GM foodstuffs is more difficult than that of drugs or food additives, this scarcity of data and the lack of a scientific database is curious particularly as descriptions of the results of chemical, nutritional and biological testing in some early (unpublished) studies or some more recent publications demonstrate the feasibility of carrying out proper and scientifically valid health risk assessment on GM foods. In this review, after critically examining some of the basic principles, past results and possible novel methods of future health safety assessment of GM foodstuffs, the conclusion appears to be that as the tools for the recognition and indeed for the elimination of the risks GM foods may present for us are available or can be developed, it is the will and the funding for such work that needs to be found.
 
 
how are they less productive? how are they more costly?
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/indian-farmers-committing-suicide-monsanto-gm-crops/
 
Of course, with MSM, you have to follow the source to find the agenda of the story writers.
 
A bit of reaserch will show you which stories are put out by big agra and universities recieving money from them, which are put out by "greenies" trying to increase their share of non gmo markets, which are politically motivated, and which by concerned but non affiliated parties.
 
Figure the truth out to the best of your ability.
 
having a hard time understanding some of your points, but ill try.
 
 
 
  Sorry, the method constantly saying "Hey, look over there at that!" to distract people from focusing on the science and having it clearly & concisely tested, is not actually proving the safety - despite all the money that gets pumped in to claim it is. What that is, is a psychological gambit of "How long can we distract them?". Thus why cigarette packages have to be labeled - in the long term their gambit failed.
 
i think you are confusing my analogies with a straw man argument. IMO my analogies are valid. 
My point was, and is that, GMO foods and technology are insanely more beneficial than they are potentially harmful. further more, there is almost 0 credible evidence of harm caused, or even a mechanism wherein they could harm.  as such they merit free use.
their potential for good far outweighs their miniscule potential for harm.
 
cell phones. same deal. very very beneficial, very little evidence of harm.
 
the ideology of " we just dont know enough about it!" is a very slippery slope as im sure you can imagine. who gets to decide when we know enough? you? political activists? or the body of scientific research? the department of agriculture? FDA?
to you these agencies are corrupt and shilling. there is 0 way to convince you or any other virulently anti gmo oriented person otherwise
 
the problem is, you and similar ideologues view scientists and researchers as having 0 moral compass. They just shill and whore to any and all sources of funding. The fact is that scientific literature is peer reviewed and scrutinized heavily, improper methodologies are slammed and premature jumps to a conclusion are as well. published research is very often redacted from journals when problems are discovered.
 
why do you think people always say post peer reviewed journals or " it didnt happen"? its because peer reviewing is a rigorous framework wherein we can keep people honest. they can be scrutinized and held accountable or at the very least criticized for poor or erroneous methodology. When people make wild arm waving claims, cite data, and then publish a conclusion, but withhold their data and methods they are not adhering to the spirit of the scientific method because their experiments or procedures cannot be replicated. 
when their claims are severely criticized, the gmo ideologues dismiss any of the criticisms and insted embrace them as brave acedemic pariahss, willing to stand up to the man and fight for the common person.   ( see rat cancer guy... puztai (sp?))
download.jpeg

 
 
 
.. So, can the issue of, say, the -millions- of people that have become dependent on anti-depressants and other drugs be excused because in the short term the companies & doctors pushing them didn't see dramatic side-effects, lasting side-effects? (same goes from defective birth control, etc, since you made mention of those)
 
what is your point here exactly?  what do you mean by excused?
 i THINK you are asserting that i draw the following conclusion ....
 
many people take anti depressants & few exhibit side effects. therefore they are in fact safe and merit no study at all.
 
i do not.
i do not fully understand your point well enough to  expand on.
What i have asserted all along here is:
             1-GMO is enormously more beneficial than harmful,
            2-opposition to gmo is driven largely by misguided naturalistic ideologues and by simple fear and ignorance.
            3-There is no credible evidence of harm to hold up that would merit taking them off the marked, or merit forcing labeling.
 
 
 
How are you deciding to differentiate between deciding which items and their long term effects are worthy of study and which aren't?
 You mention that studies on environment and effects of oil spills are credible, but then you list several that - because the long-term effects aren't immediately apparent - somehow aren't. So.. "If you don't see it, it didn't happen"?
 
 im not arguing that things shouldn't be studied on a long term if the effects arent instantly apparent.  that is nonsense, and i think you are being purposely obtuse and combative here. 
 
i am simply arguing that, barring some completely new and hitherto untested technolagy that is completly unlike anything else,  they must in some way have a valid mechanism for possible harm, or if the mechanism is unknown at least have some  degree of evidence for the existence of harm.
 
example: oil spill. 
 
we know oil harms wild life and ecosystems correct? we know these effects last a while correct? we know what oil is what its made off and how it can effect organisms. we dont know how it effects a... wetland and alligators for example. we should therefore study the effects because we could learn something valuable.
 
example: cell phones.
 
we do not know how these radio waves could even possibly harm us. we do not have any demonstrable mechanism for possible harm, there is no history of similar harm from other similar technologies, we know lots about radio waves micowaves etc.  therefore what is to be gained by studying this non issue? why should we study something closely for decades when there is no plausible mechanism for, or evidence supporting harm?
 
NOW, on the other hand if say. 10 years down the line, epidemiological studies show that people that use cell phones heavily develop similar cancers 5% more often  than others. we would then ATLEAST have a some demonstrable harm to investigate.  it would then be studied to find a mechanism for the harm, and from there we could look for a way to correct this.
 do you see what i am saying?
 
GMO products have 0 demonstrable direct harm to humans, no plausable mechanism for harm, and lots of history to rely on.
 
you mentioned somewhere that GMO products are a means by which farmers can make more money than they would otherwise?  Yea this is probably true, but so what?
 
are you saying that because they making a greater profit they are therefore unethical? even if this were true, so what? do you expect people to farm for purely benevolent reasons?
 
what does more profit mean?
in the context of a commodity market place, where demand is stable and highly elastic... greater profit results from one of a few things. greater production, lower marginal costs, higher efficiency.
which one of those is bad?
 
 perhaps you are saying that because so much money is involved... there is incentive to cover up good science and hide the harm that is being done? i suppose this is possible, the similarity you drew with respect to tobacco companies is valid imo. i do think agribuisness would try very hard to defend the status quo, but where is there evidence of this?
tobacco companies used a series of now famous PR tricks, and political leverage, but none the less succumbed to good ole' science and the body of scientific consensus.
 
please stop being disingenuous with your arguments,  i dont think my views, as i stated them, are anywhere near ambiguous enough to merit such a wild misinterpretations. if you are somehow genuinely misinterpreting what i have said, then i suppose i am sorry.
 
from what i can tell... the rest of the issues you and others take with what i have said, tend to fall in a similar if not identical vane. as such ill let the above responses speak against yours and others claims and assertions.
 
 
 
 
EDIT: BTW, i dont know if i made this clear earlier, but i am in no way saying that GMO crops should not be studies period.
im saying that they should not be held hostage pending some exhaustive 20 year long study. this is not merited for the above reasons.
 
FWIW, GMO crops do have a number of consequences that are INDIRECTLY responsible for problems we are now seeing in isect populations migrations etc. in many cases however these are not specific to gmo crops in particular, but to farming practices as a whole. i would however argue that these problems are well within our ability to manage without requiring drastic alterations in farming practices and methods that others seem to espouse.

Nigel said:
 
This was written in 2003, which to my obviously bad math, is less than 20 years ago.
 
Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks of GM Food?

  1. Arpad Pusztai*, Consultant Biologist (formerly, The Rowett Research Institute)
  1. Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
  1. *6 Ashley Park North, Aberdeen AB10 6SF, Scotland, UK. Phone/fax: 44-(0)1224-594954. E-mail: a.pusztai@freenet.co.uk

Abstract
Nearly ten years after the introduction of GM foodcrops there are still only a handful of published studies about their safety. Independent studies are even fewer, moreover, no peer-reviewed publications exist in which the results of clinical investigations on the possible effects of GM food on human health are described. Even though the evaluation of the safety or possible toxicity of GM foodstuffs is more difficult than that of drugs or food additives, this scarcity of data and the lack of a scientific database is curious particularly as descriptions of the results of chemical, nutritional and biological testing in some early (unpublished) studies or some more recent publications demonstrate the feasibility of carrying out proper and scientifically valid health risk assessment on GM foods. In this review, after critically examining some of the basic principles, past results and possible novel methods of future health safety assessment of GM foodstuffs, the conclusion appears to be that as the tools for the recognition and indeed for the elimination of the risks GM foods may present for us are available or can be developed, it is the will and the funding for such work that needs to be found.

 
 
a little objective research goes a long way.
please read about why he is 'formerly' associated with that research institution.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
 
the problem is, you and similar ideologues view scientists and researchers as having 0 moral compass. They just shill and whore to any and all sources of funding. The fact is that scientific literature is peer reviewed and scrutinized heavily, improper methodologies are slammed and premature jumps to a conclusion are as well. published research is very often redacted from journals when problems are discovered.
 

 
Funnily enough I was a scientist in academia and industry for 20 years, performing cancer research, so I`m hardly likely to think scientists have no moral compass. But thanks for playing and assuming you know me, even if you didn`t read what I wrote earlier. Where did you get your PhD? And in who`s labs did you do your postdoctoral fellowships?
 
​No, it does not happen "very often" It is, thankfully, quite rare. 
 
why do you think people always say post peer reviewed journals or " it didnt happen"? its because peer reviewing is a rigorous framework wherein we can keep people honest. they can be scrutinized and held accountable or at the very least criticized for poor or erroneous methodology. When people make wild arm waving claims, cite data, and then publish a conclusion, but withhold their data and methods they are not adhering to the spirit of the scientific method because their experiments or procedures cannot be replicated. 
when their claims are severely criticized, the gmo ideologues dismiss any of the criticisms and insted embrace them as brave acedemic pariahss, willing to stand up to the man and fight for the common person.   ( see rat cancer guy... puztai (sp?))
 
As a scientist I actually reviewed hundreds of manuscripts for Nature, Science, Cell and many other journals, plus I reviewed grant applications from multiple funding agencies. I suspect I`ve forgotten more about peer review than you`ll ever know. But again, thanks for assuming you know me. 
 
EDIT: BTW, i dont know if i made this clear earlier, but i am in no way saying that GMO crops should not be studies period.
im saying that they should not be held hostage pending some exhaustive 20 year long study. this is not merited for the above reasons.
 
Ok, how long, 5 minutes? Are you a scientist? Maybe you can design the study for us? Please do, I can`t wait to see it.
 
FWIW, GMO crops do have a number of consequences that are INDIRECTLY responsible for problems we are now seeing in isect populations migrations etc. in many cases however these are not specific to gmo crops in particular, but to farming practices as a whole. i would however argue that these problems are well within our ability to manage without requiring drastic alterations in farming practices and methods that others seem to espouse.
 
How do you know that? Did you do a 5 minutes study and come to that conclusion independently?
 
a little objective research goes a long way. please read about why he is 'formerly' associated with that research institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
 
Thanks, I know all about that incident. The Lancet published his work. The Institute got rid of him and the Royal Society threw him under the bus. Did Stanley Ewen also get the same treatment? No he didn`t, he was the senior author and therefore responsible for the veracity of the data, but he was also a fellow of the royal society, so he was immune to any issues. He did retire as a statement. 
 
Pusztai's experiment was eventually published as a letter in The Lancet in 1999.[9] Because of the controversial nature of his research the letter was reviewed by six reviewers - three times the usual number. One publicly opposed the letter, another thought it was flawed, but wanted it published "to avoid suspicions of a conspiracy against Pusztai and to give colleagues a chance to see the data for themselves," while the other four raised questions that were addressed by the authors.[10] The letter reported significant differences between the thickness of the gutepithelium of rats fed genetically modified potatoes, compared to those fed the control diet.[9]
 

You really are a combatative fellow, aren`t you. 

This is my last post trying to get you to see common sense. If you don`t have any common sense, I`m obviously wasting my time.
 
WoW.
 
too much info and years worth of reading!
 
No matter the arguments  pro or con, just one is serious and undeniable.
Monoculture by big agra.
one strain (or just a few) planted worldwide.
 
By abandoning diversity, just one bug or disease could wipe out global production for years, as diverse seed stock will be in short supply.
 
"University Corn Trial Results Suggest Non-GMO Hybrid Performance Is Competitive With GMO Counterparts"
 
"Spectrum Premium Non-GMO hybrids, used in the testing, produced 3 to 10 more bushels per acre when compared to nationally known GMO corn hybrids.  Trial details: http://bit.ly/1baSkPt "
 
Article found here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1598160#ixzz2lgHktQbZ
 
:)
 
Ocho Cinco said:
If I could genetically modify some THC into a jalapeno I'd do it in a heartbeat.
 
 
 
.. Definitely going to need to produce a TON more corn for Tostitos and the like if that were happen.. just imagine the salsa sales. lol
 
Nigel said:
 
Glad to hear about your educational and professional background. genuinely need more people like yourself around.

what did you study?
I have no phd. i do not even have a BS at this point.

 

 
to your critisizms:
 
im not sure why you are responding to my post as if it was even directed to you? clearly it was not.
was that your post i was quoting?
 

But thanks for playing and assuming you know me, even if you didn`t read what I wrote earlier. Where did you get your PhD? And in who`s labs did you do your postdoctoral 
fellowships?
 
i think your anger is misdirected, if not baffling.
 
you seem to be critical of my assertions that continuous long term studies are an unecessary prerequisite to releasing it onto the market?
 
beyond my admittedly anemic academic background what claims have i made that you take issue with?
 
i understand that you are arguing from a point of authority on the subject matter, what exactly is wrong with my claims? always eager to learn.
 
Brain Strain Pepper Head said:
[SIZE=14pt]NO GMO!! My family and I gave up all the GMO/ High Fructose corn syrup crap years ago. Strict vegan/vegetarian  here and loving it. Lost 125 pounds and the only thing I did were to cut out package food and meat. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt]But we made that decision and everyone is entitled to eat whatever they want.  [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt] [/SIZE]
All day bro!
 
souf said:
 


To summarize the study, the researchers started with four groups each with five pairs of male and female hamsters. Group 1 was fed a diet of non-GM soybeans, group 2 was fed a diet of genetically modified soybeans, group 3 was fed a diet containing a different variety of genetically modified soybeans, and finally group 4 was fed a diet free of soy entirely. The researchers then bred the hamsters within their respective groups for an additional two generations and then killed the final generation at the age of 45 days to measure various biological parameters relating to their development.
 
http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/10/alexey-surov-and-gm-soy-recurrent-tale.html
 
4 groups of 10  animals interbred for three generations. 
 
As the father of a child with a degree of Autism I have to be aware of what I put on the table at meal time. For instance, white flour or white sugar, only if I want him in a total melt down and a night of fighting with him to get even the smallest thing done. I have no idea whether other parents of Autistic children have noted the effect of different foods on their children or not but for mine it's there. So, whether I'm for or against GMO foods, I don't buy them. Also most of what I buy is fresh with other, labeled Organic, as needed. Since moving to a more organic diet and cutting out almost all of the white sugar/HFCS products our kids have made great strides in overcoming the issues they had when they first came to live with us as our Foster children, we adopted them last year. They could outgrow they food issues they have but even if they don't, they're young enough that they'll grow up eating this way and hopefully will just naturally continue it when they're grown.
 
The biggest thing to me really is how the taste of the food we buy has changed. It just seems that it isn't as flavorful as I remember food being when I was a kid back in the 60's and 70's. This I think, JMHO, comes from how the land used to grow food crops has become more and more depleted of nutrients, minerals and trace elements. Farmers are more and more relying on fertilizers to bring their crops to maturity which can only replace so much of what's missing. Pretty much gone are the days of crop rotations where those missing elements were replaced naturally and the soil allowed time to recover from growing a crop that was particularly hard on it. Of course they're trying to grow twice as much per acre on that land also. 
 
My brother has a son that their doctors are saying is Autistic, and a cousin has two sons - both of which are higher-functioning autistic. My brother's son is only around 4 and his wife insists on gluten-free foods etc for their kids just because of what she's read up on Autism and healthy eating and the like. Given how young he is, it's difficult to tell how much of a difference it's made, but I do know that my cousin also makes efforts, where she can, along the same lines and it does seem to make a difference with her kids (one of which is into his early teens now). :)
 
My brother & his family live in Finland, and have for the past 4+ years (both kids were born there), so in terms of eating more healthy they're pretty much off to an automatic head-start since in Europe they tend to rely much more on fresh, natural foods, as opposed to GMO, frozen foods, foods filled with preservatives, etc.
 
Back
Top