The thought did occur to when I posted about GMO's that a number of farmers were on this site so this was expected to some degree. I had not until just last night queried these terms (see below) on Google and the results are to say the least about GMO's are not helping our food sources at all. GMO's cannot be traced to directly to human diseases such as cancer etc. but I for damn sure know that it is not helping.
Are GMO’s allowed in Europe
Is Monsanto allowed in Europe
My reading and research for me was not based on just how good or bad GMO's are, mine started two years ago when I was diagnosed with two types of cancer that's when he GMO questions started popping up in that research. For about a year and a half, 40+ hours a week reading about cancer and what my options were. (Chemotherapy and Radiation not for me) It came down to several issues, my immune was a wreck, my past behavior in my 20's and 30's, and the quality of foods I eat so eliminating GMO's was a no brainer..
So you see, I'm not a sterotype, un-educated, did not do my research for the statement I made as you implied me of not doing/being in your post.
BTW, did you know the NCI stops tracking cancer patients on their database after five years, why, you are either "cured" in the 5 years (term used loosley)or dead. Then after the five years is when cancers from radiation and chemotherapy and a myriad of other health issues start to show up, I even stated this to one of my oncologists, look up iatrogenic not a word you use around your doctor. You are more likely to die of the "cancer treatments" than cancer...
First off, I did not state or imply that you were a stereotypical uneducated person who did not do their research. I stated that the site you suggested has a lot of the same stereotypical "facts" that can be misleading. I apologize if you thought I was saying you are uneducated, I was not. I did ask for your reasoning behind not liking GMO's and got very little info other than you "dont feel they are helping". Fair enough though.
As for Europe, that topic comes up all the time. Many are under the assumption that GMO's are banned in Europe. This is true but false. GMO's have stricter regulations in Europe and can be approved for use, as many already have. The regulations differ for the intended use of the product as well. Some of Monsanto's products are in these approved GMO's.
This brings me to my next point, a real blood boiler. MONSANTO MONSANTO MONSANTO. My god what is it with people and assuming GMO=Monsanto. I have a hard time debating those who simply go off about Monsanto and not the real issue at hand. Its like hating all Hybrid cars because of the Prius. There are a lot of companies that are involved with GMO's, many larger that Monsanto however Monsanto is the leading company in GMO seeds and makes headlines everywhere due to some of their shady business practices. I'm not going to say they are an upstanding company, but the issue is not the ethics of one company, the issue IS GMO's.
One of the hot topics many like to pick on is Monsanto's technology agreements. This is where activists try to make farmers feel good by stating we are the victims. They are quick to point out the few cases of farmers who were sued because of Monsanto's traits ending up in a neighboring field, etc. I don't know the details of every case, and there are always multiple sides to every story. What I do know is that the company has a right to protect their intellectual property. Without this agreement in place a farmer could buy the seed, harvest it and then save it for the following year. It is theft in a way and its very hard to police it and control it. I don't fault any of the companies for wanting to protect what is theirs. Do I feel everything is fair and that they offer this tech in an open market with fair prices? Not necessarily, but I don't think it would be fair to force them to not have any sort of protection on what is theirs either. If a farmer saves seed, plants it and then sells that for profit (in any form), that is a form of theft. It is a complicated situation, but it is theft none-the-less. If that farmer produced their own seed to begin with it would not be theft. Am I saying all of the lawsuits were warranted and fair? Nope, but look at every other industry and all of their lawsuits, then tell me there isn't a handful that seem unfair or "stupid".
GMO's and health have always been a big issue for some reason. Many scientists will agree that the direct effects on a human ingesting a GMO are far less a concern as the effects on other factors such as the environment. Something like BST for example shows no effects on humans in many, many studies, but the issues that can result from poor animal management can be amplified with the use of BST and that is an issue that can lead to a poor quality product and negative impact on the environment.
I too have been diagnosed with Cancer (Stage 4b Hodgkins) and something I've noticed is that people often look for something/someone to blame for their diagnosis. When I was diagnosed, I really didn't care what caused it because it had already happened. At that point all that I cared about was getting rid of it. The known causes for HL are few and were not things that would have contributed to me developing it. I got the lectures from some about doing the "natural" treatments and such, but with the advanced stage of my HL and the pain I was in at the time, I felt like taking the route suggested by my doctors. Am I saying "big pharma" is honest and that nothing else works? Nope, but I had more confidence in treatments that had been working at the time than I did in something I knew little about and would have to pay for out of pocket. I got the lectures about the natural treatments from a few people and to be honest I'm glad I didn't listen to them, one nearly died until he was able to recover to the point he could go through traditional chemo. Since then he's been much much better and was going through some research trials. As for me, the first traditional treatment regimen that lasted 6 months failed. The secondary treatment showed very little results. The third treatment showed great results after only two rounds and being a therapeutic treatment, had very little side effects. I'm now awaiting results tomorrow to see if I do radiation next, or get to go through with my Stem Cell Transplant right away. I'm all for finding new ways to cure different types of cancer, and if there's natural ways that work great. Personally though, i'm very young, just got married and i'm really not at the point in my life where I want to be one of the volunteers to "risk it" trying to find a natural way to cure me. What I do know is that stell cell transplants are currently one of the only proven long term cures for many types of cancers especially lymphomas. Without a transplant, the 5 year survival rate for people like me with Refractory HL that had two treatments fail is less than 8%. That number is not very old either actually.
I am not sure what kind of doc's you must have, but all of mine are very open and honest about risks with treatments, especially secondary cancers. I do not know if the NCI does or does not track anything after 5 years, but someone does because there is a lot of information about the risks of developing secondary cancers due to the treatments. Off the top of my head IIRC I have a 16% chance of developing some form of leukemia in the future. You know what? I'm alive today, and thats what matters. Once I have a PET come back nearly 100% clean, the doc isn't just going to throw me out the door and be done. They monitor you very close for the rest of your life, if you so choose. So while the risks of a cancer due to treatment are there, the odds of them catching it before it becomes a serious issues are much greater. The beauty of it all is that you can do what you want also, I have no say in it and I'm not here to tell you otherwise. Just stating what I chose and why.
Being diagnosed with Cancer leads many people to eating a healthier diet as well. This is where a lot of the GMO & Organic "feel good" craze comes from IMO. When many people decide to eat healthy they turn to the internet for research. What is the latest health craze? Organic, GMO-Free, Pasture raised, Gluten-Free (odd), all Natural, etc etc. So when these people are making their choices they automatically choose foods that meet these criteria. After a short while on this new diet they feel amazing, and proceed to tell others how great they feel. Often times they give credit to the criteria listed as the main reason they feel so great. However, if you look deeper into their story, you often learn that they went from eating junk, to eating less processed more wholesome foods with a greater emphasis on fruits/veggies that they often lacked before. I haven't run into many people that went from eating a very healthy diet, to simply cutting out GMO's and noticing they "feel better". Placebo effect yes, but if you do it blind many don't notice the difference short term. I am not stating GMO's are healthy, or make the world a better place, I am simply stating there is as much evidence proving them beneficial as there is proving them evil.
While on the topic of GMO's and cancer, its important to bring up the topic of GMO foods versus GMO's in general. One of the GMO's I have recieved during my treatments is Filgrastim which is used to promote white blood cell growth. Without this, harvest of stem cells from blood through apheresis would not be economical, and a true bone marrow transplant would have to be performed which is much more invasive and very painful. Insulin is something more people can relate to, a large portion of the insulin produced is a GMO. These are just a few of the things in our lives that we don't necessarily eat, but that still benefit from GMO technology.
What is my point in all of this GMO rambling? The simple fact that a blanket statement that GMO's are all bad, is very childish. GMO technology itself can be very beneficial, it can also be very harmful, as with many new technologies. More people need to invest more time and money into researching each GMO on an individual basis to determine the risks and benefits, then decide what to do with that GMO. Simply wanting a ban on all GMO's is not the answer, and it shouldn't be. Why go backwards on technology because some examples of it are not necessarily good. There is also the fact that negative and positive effects need to be strongly looked at. Hydric acid has killed thousands and thousands of people, yet it would be impossible to ban and its benefits far outweigh the risks. Scientific illiteracy is a big issue as I explained in a previous post.
I could continue one, but don't have much to debate as your post didn't contain much of an opinion of why you choose organic and non-GMO. I'd love to go more in depth on the organic topic, but am running short on time for tonite.
Good luck with your health.
Thanks.
