here is the article:Article in natural news today that says we are all eating GMO stuff whether we realize it or not.
i would imagine it is a legal loophole. fetuses might not be considered by some liberal judges to be human, so... there you go.Also because cannibalism is illegal how can they be putting aborted fetus cells in our food and what is the purpose of it?
great point here. a friend who eats crap food, makes this argument all the time. my opinion: the food additives and quality are steadily getting worse. i think that the bad food we might have eaten earlier in our lives wasnt nearly as bad as it is today. GMOs didnt come out until the 90s and roundup/glyphosphate wasnt as prevalent, so the mr. T cereal or the ding dongs you ate in 1986 were less dangerous (perhaps more nutritious?) than todays ding dongs.On the bright side if we have been eating all this crap all our lives and are still alive and healthy could this possibly mean that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger?
no. the roaches have both a high fecundity rate and a rapid growth rate, so given the right conditions can have many generations of roaches in a short period. this means there are plenty of chances for a roach to be born that is resistant to low levels of radiation. additionally, they can eat almost anything, including plastics (one ate right through a ziploc bag with my mp3 player earplugs and ate the silicon ear plugs).It has been said that cockroaches could even survive a nuclear blast. Maybe if we all start drinking cockroach milk we too can adapt to anything just like them ?
Yeah thanks for the link to article I was talking about so everyone else can see it. I don't know how to post links. Also I remember how you talked about Corbett report and am curious what you think about Zero Hedge and Gateway Pundit websites ? Also maybe roaches did you a favor eating your ear buds because I think they and headphones slowly harm hearing and never use either.here is the article:
Genetically modified organisms or GMOs are produced by unnatural, high-tech or sophisticated altering of the genetic material of an organism like gene-splicing and combining the DNA of species in a laboratory environment. GMO technology uses specific scientific innovation to genetically alter plawww.naturalnews.com
the article is saying that any time you eat something labeled as, say, corn, you could be eating something that is GMO. thats true. but all you have to do is avoid anything that has been genetically modified and you are safe. so... eat nothing with corn/corn products, soy/soy oil, sugar (unless it is specifically cane sugar), etc whether it is organic or not. that way you are 100% safe (and the article is right about "organic" labeling-- it allows for small amounts of GMOs to still be labeled organic. if the product you buy does not specify what oil is in it or what it is fried in, consider it GMO because it probably is.
i would imagine it is a legal loophole. fetuses might not be considered by some liberal judges to be human, so... there you go.
great point here. a friend who eats crap food, makes this argument all the time. my opinion: the food additives and quality are steadily getting worse. i think that the bad food we might have eaten earlier in our lives wasnt nearly as bad as it is today. GMOs didnt come out until the 90s and roundup/glyphosphate wasnt as prevalent, so the mr. T cereal or the ding dongs you ate in 1986 were less dangerous (perhaps more nutritious?) than todays ding dongs.
GMO damage is permanent. there was a report several years ago showing that the genetically modified DNA of a given organism can be uptaken by the bacteria in the gut in a vacuole. the bacteria have a circular DNA strand, and in bacteria, the DNA is "cut" with special DNA enzymes and the modified piece of DNA is absorbed into the bacteria, making that bacterial cell in your body genetically modified, and, depending on where the DNA modification took place on the GMO product, that bacterium will express that modification if that "contaminated" DNA portion was absorbed. these, of course, will multiply in your gut, and depending on where and what these modified genes code for, could cause disease.
in laymans terms, your gut bacteria can eat the GMO DNA and become GMO gut bacteria themselves, excreting toxic substances.
lastly, i think health toxicity is both cumulative and chronic. the body will take a lot of abuse and can certainly bounce back given the right care, but sometimes the damage can go too far if there are decades of abuse.
no. the roaches have both a high fecundity rate and a rapid growth rate, so given the right conditions can have many generations of roaches in a short period. this means there are plenty of chances for a roach to be born that is resistant to low levels of radiation. additionally, they can eat almost anything, including plastics (one ate right through a ziploc bag with my mp3 player earplugs and ate the silicon ear plugs).
all of these reasons make them very adaptable and resistant.
I hope its not too much threadjacking to say that i read Gateway Pundit, and sometimes they have good stories but they mostly focus on pushing the narrative (Trump=good, of course he's not controlled opposition) and their take on everything is usually affirming the "alternate" narrative, but not really thinking outside the boxGateway Pundit
Different LONG article blaming everything on global warming, gene editing CRISPR to the rescue. Bonus points, doesn't require labeling, since it's gene editing not gene splicing. Written over 4 yrs ago, so who knows what theyve done since then.There’s a parasite that infects the roots of coffee shrubs, called the root-knot nematode, and it’s infection significantly limits the coffee shrub’s ability to take in water and nutrients, thus limiting yield.
So, of course, scientists found a genome from some bacteria to insert into the genome of Coffee Arabica to increase the plant’s resistance to the root-knot nematode. In summary, the root stock of the coffee shrub roots are genetically engineered, but not the coffee plants or beans, or are they? The reactions from thousands of coffee enthusiasts in Hawaii was less than stellar.
Since then, food scientists at the University of California, Davis, sequenced the Coffee (Coffea) Arabica genome and made it publicly available. Using CRISPR “technology,” they’ve edited the coffee genome in a laboratory to give it unnatural traits to kill parasites, with ZERO tests run to see if this is safe for human consumption.
Those CRISPR gene-editing kits are fairly cheap, so scientists in laboratories around the world are jumping on the GMO coffee bandwagon, trying to use toxic genes to kill anything that cuts into corporate profits, in a global coffee industry worth over $100 billion.
TLDR Lots of things are gene edited and in stores and not required to be labeled gmo.Studies suggest that by 2050, climate change will impact more than half the land currently used for coffee cultivation, creating conditions unsuitable for production. While climate change is difficult to predict, the scientific community agrees the future outlook for coffee production is dire unless immediate action is taken. The response to climate change must include aggressive solutions. New coffee cultivars are required to adapt to the impact of climate change.
Conventional breeding programs can take more than 30 years to produce a commercially available cultivar. (For more on current work in conventional breeding, read “The Fight Against Coffee Pests” on page 52 in the latest issue of Roast). Looking through the lens of climate change, this time frame is unacceptable. Similarly, transgenic engineering — incorporating foreign DNA into the genome of an organism — as it exists today is time intensive and requires significant financial investment.
Although there is widespread consumer opposition to genetically modified foods and beverages, the scientific community does not share that opposition. And in light of the dire outlook for the future of coffee cultivation in the coming decades, it seems clear we must understand and embrace research that includes genetic engineering as a potential tool in the fight to save coffee.
In 2006, Dr. Chifumi Nagai, a senior scientist in plant breeding and biotechnology at the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC), decided to apply research in cystatin — a proteinase inhibitor modified from the rice genome that has previously shown resistance to nematodes in other plants — to coffee. Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens to insert the genomic sequence of cystatin into the genome of Coffea arabica (sp. typica), she and her colleagues were able to develop a transgenic coffee plant that demonstrated an increased resistance to the root-knot nematode.
This research, however, brought public scrutiny, and although Dr. Nagai says the researchers simply “wanted to demonstrate that a different method would work for the coffee nematode,” she found herself working hard to assuage the Hawaii coffee community that her study was not intended to produce a commercially available coffee cultivar. (Interestingly, in this particular study, the coffee plants were not genetically engineered, only the root-stock was, so the coffee itself would not have been genetically modified. Still, there was significant opposition from the industry.)
CRISPR-related research has gained momentum in the past decade as the implications of how CRISPR could be used as a gene-editing tool have become clear.
Researchers at the University of California, Davis, recently sequenced the genome of Coffea arabica (which has been made publicly available). They discovered there are approximately 70,000-plus genes in the coffee genome. Through the use of genomic sequencing and CRISPR, scientists could now be capable of editing the coffee genome and selecting desirable traits, though it appears no one is using this technique to breed coffee plants at this time.
Without profit incentives for big agriculture companies to invest in coffee research, advancement in the field has been left to various laboratories throughout the world, many without large research budgets. Now kits are available with the basic CRISPR components for $65, a price well within the reach of scientists interested in developing new coffee cultivars. Custom RNA sequences also have decreased in cost due to advancing technologies.
Another potential advantage of using CRISPR to edit the coffee genome is that many regulatory hurdles are not required. Agencies such as the USDA require oversight only if an organism is transgenic (i.e., foreign DNA has been incorporated into its genetic makeup). Many crops have been gene-edited via CRISPR and will be available in the grocery store within the next year. One example is the white button mushroom, which has been edited to slow the browning process, as consumers typically see a lack of browning as an indication of freshness.
In the meantime, there is no reason to go to CRISPR in coffee for very practical reasons.
Solutions? Other than choosing mostly heirloom crops from local farmers I really don't know. I had mostly researched the gmo issue about a decade ago, so I'm horrified at how much worse the situation is.Gene editing, meanwhile, can produce useful crop traits in a much shorter period of time. The technology is less than two decades old and has already produced improved foods—and all without inserting “foreign” DNA into plants, which was the organic industry’s primary objection to genetically modified (GM) crops for many years.
Some organic growers see this development as a boon to their industry and are calling for revised rules that would allow them to benefit from gene editing. Their opposition to the accepted wisdom in organic agriculture underscores an important point mainstream scientists have been making for years: biotechnology can help make farming more sustainable as a rising global population demands more food.
Nonetheless, those few organic proponents who have entertained the notion of using gene editing have been marginalized by major US organic groups, including the Cornucopia Institute, Organic Trade Association, and Organic Consumers Association. Instead of contemplating the potential of CRISPR, some of these groups have gone backwards, signaling their intent to exclude mutagenized crops from organic farming after decades of use to address the obvious double standard described above.
wow. the soil gets depleted from poor farming practices then gets chemtrailed and the solution science gives us is to play frankenstein with the coffee.Solutions? Other than choosing mostly heirloom crops from local farmers I really don't know. I had mostly researched the gmo issue about a decade ago, so I'm horrified at how much worse the situation is.
Well of course. If it involves them getting to mess with everything and experiment on us, why would they try anything less harmful?no one in the mainstream ag biz wants to talk about permaculture because it doesnt require any synthetic garbage. its ridiculous.
I'll check the thread out. Could definitely use some garden tips, we rent and the genius who lived here before us paved up much of the yard, so i mostly have to do container gardening but at least i compost.in the homesteading thread, i put a bunch of links if anyone is interested in boosting their garden fertility using electroculture and other alternative "tricks" like using structured water. orgonite works
In essence, this seems to be what Max Igan was saying, which may have been where he got the information from or vice versa. What was funny is the other day in a supermarket I saw a bunch of the cheese puff bags with "sustainable" ingredients in them in my earlier post on the 50% rack. I couldn't help but laugh. There were more than ½ a dozen of them left so clearly people have either read the ingredients, or have read the tweet.
What is cochineal if I dare ask?
Its listed on the product that was posted, so i think it may be required.Is it required to be listed on food labels?
Yes, the following posts were about that.Has anyone heard about that there are supposedly fetal cells (from aborted fetuses) used in some capacity in sodas to sweeten them? Of course, I'm not certain of the credibility, but it would definitely be vile if true. Almost like a forced Canaanite practice.
semonyx is a food additive that is made from aborted human fetal cells. these companies are probably supplied by planned parenthood.
That semonyx stuff is really crazy. I found this factcheck on the rothschild Reuters site. What its titled - No fetal tissue, debunked!!
What it actually says in the article-
Ok, ok so it DID have aborted fetal tissue in it from 2010 - 2014 but when people found out, they ended the contract ok?!?! Would you give it a rest?!?!
And NOOOOO were not telling you if we put aborted fetal tissue in the drinks independently after we ended our partnership with Semonyx. Just forget about it ok?!?!?!?!?!?
View attachment 80535