|
|
#81
11-07-2012, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
I'm not against labeling. Not responding to you any further until you can read 1 post and actually make an intelligent response instead of posting pictures you found on reddit/4chan.
__________________
<@patriot1776> i dont even rely on my facial hairs to get laid good luck to you
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#82
11-07-2012, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
Somebody simply hasn't read the proposition, and has put way too much time and effort into proving a point that's completely pointless. Yes, it's nice to know what other countries have done. That's not the issue at hand.
Hard to swallow pride and back down for a moment for some people, I guess.
__________________
[60 ORACLE] SPITULSKI <The A-Team>
Batmanning today for a better tomorrow. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#83
11-07-2012, 11:03 PM
|
|||
|
Default Orijen and Acana GMO Free
New research that followed more then just a few months of test rats that were fed GMO foods showed a super high rate of cancer and infertility. So I wrote a bunch of dog food brands about the use of genetically modified organisms "GMOs" and Champion's response was the most impressive. Figured I'd share. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................... MESSAGE is your kibble free of GMO\'s? I have seen the studies where these foods cause tumors and aggression. I feed the pink bag of Fromm\\\'s puppy gold but am gearing up to change to no grain in the near future and I am thinking since your Canadian that there is a good chance you don\'t use genetically modified organisms in your feed like they think it\'s safe to feed the public here in the USA. Let me know please. -Dredge .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. . Hello Dredge, Thank you for taking the time to write to us with your question. I hope that I can put your mind at ease by telling you that we do not any GMO ingredients. All of the animals raised for us as fresh meat ingredients are fed a GMO free diet. A couple of other ingredients of concern to consumers in particular are alfalfa, potato and canola oil. Alfalfa GMO seed is illegal to sell in Canada, and we use GMO free potato in our diets. Canola was developed using traditional plant breeding techniques right here in Canada and is rich in health-protective vitamin E and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as Linoleic Acid (an omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid) play an important role in skin and coat health, organ function and decreasing inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. It is important when formulating diets to ensure the omega 6 to omega 3 fatty are within the nutritionally ideal range. Our cold-pressed, GMO-free Canola oil adds an omega 6 component, traditionally only seen in grains and poultry, without compromising the nutritional integrity of our fish based formulations. I hope that I have been helpful and please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Kind regards | ||
|
|
|||
|
#84
11-07-2012, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
Same question to top notch well respected American co's:
This is the response from Fromm, I preferred Champion's response because they addressed what the meat sources are fed, this response seems evasive : Soybeans and corn are the two most genetically modified plants. We do not use these ingredients in any of our products. In addition, we use no ingredients that are genetically modified by crossing two different species of DNA. We do use ingredients produced through hybridization which is a form of genetic modification. So all of us concerned about this matter must be completely sure of what we believe to be a genetically modified organism. We also need to be sure and fully understand the research performed. We have no idea as to the level these rats were fed these substances. If like the saccharin study to where the rats that developed cancer were fed amounts some 750 times greater than a person would ever consume the question becomes did the saccharin really cause the cancer or was it because the levels fed were so high that the stress on the body allowed cancer to develop? I believe the latter because the FDA only listed a warning on saccharin containing foods because there is really no proof that it alone, used at normal levels, causes anything. If it is true the proof is in the pudding, then for over 63 years Fromm has been producing safe, high quality foods and to date there is absolutely no indication what so ever that the foods we produce are harmful in anyway. As of right now the FDA has no definition of GMO ingredients. Thus without no definition there is no foundation for me to construct an answer. I can say there may be and may not be, but until we have something to stand on, it is very hard to answer this question. All the FDA has acknowledged is that they have accepted the genetic modification of about 40 different plants for various reasons. I am not trying to cloud the issue, but until we have a complete understanding and a very specific definition and guidelines, I really do not have an answer. Thanks and Thank you for your interest in Earthborn Holistic Natural Food for Pets. The main ingredients of concern for GMO are corn and soy. Since our Earthborn products do to contain corn or soy, generally speaking there are little GMO issues with this product line. We don't make the claim that our products are GMO free because we do not grow our ow ingredients and cannot fully control the process. Cross contamination exists on farms, at elevators, etc and to say that traces of it do not exist cold be misleading. We also do not specify what type of corn *are fed to the animals used for meat sources. It would be nearly impossible to control this aspect of the food. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#89
11-07-2012, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
Listen, let me try and make this succinct.
Your position is sound and agreeable, but mutually exclusive from the idea that Proposition 37 needed to be passed. Genetically-modified food is, at best, an unknown quantity with vague implications when it comes to human and animal health and wellbeing. Plenty of people are absolutely against eating any product containing manually-modified genetic code. That's fine, and labeling would help that segment of the population achieve that end without an intense amount of time and labor devoted to due consumer research. Proposition 37 was the malformed result of large companies attempting to fight that labeling. When it became clearer that it would go to popular vote, these large companies lobbied intensely for contingencies that would not only offset their burden, but would allow them gigantic capital gains by swallowing small market retailers that couldn't afford to research and label all items they sold. You think you put some effort into researching your dog's food? Try multiplying that labor by thousands of products and you'll get the idea of what Proposition 37 would have done to small markets; markets which, especially in California, are already bending over backwards to source local products from genuine farming entities. The derailment of Proposition 37 may have delayed the GMO labeling debate again, but it's an incredibly smart step in the direction of preventing these GMO companies from increasing in size and clout. It's not hyperbole to say that passing 37 would have resulted in less non-GMO food being available, and Monsanto et. al would have seen massive increases in market shares. Make sense? You're right, but barking up the wrong tree.
__________________
[60 ORACLE] SPITULSKI <The A-Team>
Batmanning today for a better tomorrow. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#90
11-07-2012, 11:29 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Again, you can't seem to grasp anything between a two-solution paradigm. All you see is two sides to an issue and can't possibly comprehend anything more complex than that. | |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
