On Mar 30, 9:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
> "Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
> >> Morons will buy crap food for their kids no matter WHAT is (or isn't) on
> >> the
> >> label, so the label doesn't matter at all. I often see fat kids with fat
> >> parents in the supermarket, cart loaded with Hi-C, litre bottles of soda,
> >> Twinkies and other crap. Not a fruit or vegetable in sight. Do you think
> >> better labeling would help these morons protect their children? I don't,
> >> unless some food company was honest enough to include the words "This is
> >> crap, and even a fat slob like you can't rationalize eating it".
>
> > I agree. Truly stupid people will buy it no matter what the package
> > says. You're absolutely right in that regard.
>
> > And that is why it's important that more attention be paid to what
> > ingredients are present in food marketed for children. If the studies
> > are correct that HFCS is a significant contributor to the child obesity
> > and diabetes epidemic, then we should get that crap out of foods
> > marketed specifically to children. However, it cannot be ignored that
> > many children just don't get enough exercise these days either. They
> > spend far too much time in front of the television and XBox. I hardly
> > ever see children just playing outside anymore. It's ridiculous.
>
> > Emma
>
> The solution I like is to start intensively teaching kids about the right
> foods beginning in kindergarten, because so many parents don't do it at
> home. But, I'd imagine that would run into opposition from the same twits
> who object to sex education. "My kid came home and said it wasn't healthy to
> have mac & cheese and pepsi for dinner every night! You people have some
> nerve meddling in my family's business".-

I strongly agree. I've tried bringing health food versions of crap
food to my son's preschool well over 20 years ago (before it was PC).
I was met with criticism from every angle: the school, other parents
which resulted in the kids too.

This year, as a joke on Halloween, our favorite little guys came over
for a treat with their dad (aged 5 and 3). My daughter had just left
to trick or treat and left her miniature carrots on the table with the
crap candy. As a JOKE, I offered the two little boys carrots and they
happily took them and started eating them and threw a few in their
bag. I couldn't stop laughing. Then I thought I'd try it (again, as
a joke) when kids came over who I knew. It was so successful that I
did it with everyone...I also offered them the crap candy. But you
know what? I swear to you, not because I had an agenda ( I did
not...this was done accidentally and then as a joke) the kids liked
the carrots! Every age kid...lots of preteens and early teens came
around (our neighborhood fills up 3 school buses) and several thanked
me and asked for more.

Also...at my daughter's teacher conferences, I sat down with her home
ec teacher and talked with her for a few minutes. She said that she
is teaching a section on nutrition. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA and
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. My daughter could be teaching the class because the
teacher knew so little about nutrition. Honestly, my daughter has
come home telling me things about meat that are simply not true. I
know enough about nutrition to be teaching the class better than the
teacher. In the beginning of the class, parents were asked to send in
ingredients (donate and your kid would get extra credit). Everything
was "white" (flour, sugar, rice) No fresh foods were cooked ( would
have gladly donated veggies and fruit!!!!) The kids were learning how
to make high fat, high sugar and cholesterol laden foods. Period.
I've spent 12 years trying to teach her to make healthy choices and
then she takes a class that contradicts all that I taught her.

When all is said and done, no matter how hard we try with our kids;
they are more likely to do what their friends do. Have you ever seen
what's in the vending machines at the schools? Plain bottled water
isn't good enough...they have to have the stuff that has glucose and
dyes in it. To my daughter, "it's just a dollar!" So what's my
point? There are parents out there that encourage, advocate and teach
healthy eating....yet we let our children go at some point and they
make their choices. Sadly, from my point of view, the schools are not
sending the right message. THANK GOD dd does not want to buy lunch,
so we don't have _that_ issue. She has gone through 1st grade and is
in the middle of 7th right now and has never once said, "mom, can I
buy lunch?" To her it looks "icky" and it would interfere with the
social time (standing in line would take away time from talking to
someone). What a crack up.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:26:49 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:45 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since that is the requirement, I guess that leaves out the CSPI.
>>>
>>> Exactly. CSPI is well-known for being a crock. Sometimes
>>> they're right. Other times they just like to blow smoke. That's
>>> what brings in their funding, after all.
>>
>> Well known to whom?
>
> <yawn> There's that signature "bait" somebody was mentioning.
>
> -sw

It's a fair question. Some of what CSPI puts in its newsletter is
nitpicking, like when they tell readers that regular ice cream has too much
fat in it. But, their articles are accurate and well documented.

So, I suspect "crock" is well known only to you.

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:25:51 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > Your "BS", "**** Water Ale" and "greedy lawyer" defenses all appear to
> > be calculated at belittling the efforts of the plaintiff whose intent is
> > to prevent dishonest food labeling.
>
> My point is that it's not "dishonest food labeling". It's
> "undefined food labeling". I'll grant you "slightly misleading",
> but not "dishonest".

We simply disagree or have differing ethical barometers. If you look at
the Kraft CapriSun website I posted in this thread, I think there's lots
of misleading information there. But I won't belabor the point.

> After all, everything comes from nature. Even stuff made in a
> laboratory.

I guess if that was the message that Kraft was trying to convey--- that
everything comes from nature--- your analogy might have weight. But do
you really think that is what Kraft was attempting to convey? If not,
what message do you think Kraft was trying to impart with their "All
Natural" label on CapriSun containers?

Emma

"tofuqueen" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Mar 30, 9:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Morons will buy crap food for their kids no matter WHAT is (or isn't)
>> >> on
>> >> the
>> >> label, so the label doesn't matter at all. I often see fat kids with
>> >> fat
>> >> parents in the supermarket, cart loaded with Hi-C, litre bottles of
>> >> soda,
>> >> Twinkies and other crap. Not a fruit or vegetable in sight. Do you
>> >> think
>> >> better labeling would help these morons protect their children? I
>> >> don't,
>> >> unless some food company was honest enough to include the words "This
>> >> is
>> >> crap, and even a fat slob like you can't rationalize eating it".
>>
>> > I agree. Truly stupid people will buy it no matter what the package
>> > says. You're absolutely right in that regard.
>>
>> > And that is why it's important that more attention be paid to what
>> > ingredients are present in food marketed for children. If the studies
>> > are correct that HFCS is a significant contributor to the child obesity
>> > and diabetes epidemic, then we should get that crap out of foods
>> > marketed specifically to children. However, it cannot be ignored that
>> > many children just don't get enough exercise these days either. They
>> > spend far too much time in front of the television and XBox. I hardly
>> > ever see children just playing outside anymore. It's ridiculous.
>>
>> > Emma
>>
>> The solution I like is to start intensively teaching kids about the right
>> foods beginning in kindergarten, because so many parents don't do it at
>> home. But, I'd imagine that would run into opposition from the same twits
>> who object to sex education. "My kid came home and said it wasn't healthy
>> to
>> have mac & cheese and pepsi for dinner every night! You people have some
>> nerve meddling in my family's business".-
>
> I strongly agree. I've tried bringing health food versions of crap
> food to my son's preschool well over 20 years ago (before it was PC).
> I was met with criticism from every angle: the school, other parents
> which resulted in the kids too.
>


Kids are smarter eaters than parents give them credit for. When my son was
about 8, we threw a big Halloween party for him, 15 of his friends, and
their parents. We provided a huge spread of raw veggies & dips, including
hummus, a big bowl of cut-up fruit, and a couple of sheet pizzas. The kids
descended on the veggies & fruit like a school of piranha. Nothing but empty
dishes left in about 1/2 hour. They barely touched the pizza. The parents
took care of that. One mom-dad team said they never knew their kids would
eat fruits & vegetables like what we'd served. Friggin' morons. All you
have to do is put the food in front of them and make it look nice. Kids will
try almost anything.

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Mike Beede said...
>
> > In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
> >
> >> Emma Thackery said...
> >>
> >> > If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
> >> > playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
> >> > would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
> >> > asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.
> >>
> >>
> >> HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product.
> >
> > I don't think "genetically engineered" means what you think it
> > means.
> >
> > Mike Beede
>
>
> Genetically modified, whatever!
>
> The leap from CS to HFCS would never have occurred if somebody hadn't
> messed with it genetically. Is that natural?

There's nothing genetically modified. It's a processed food product.
Just like any other kind of sugar.

In article >,
Kate Connally > wrote:


>
> Yes, I've noticed that, too. It's in everything you buy!

I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it's a poison. As a
diabetic, I have to severely limit my consumption of it.

"Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Steve Wertz > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:25:51 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>>
>> > Your "BS", "**** Water Ale" and "greedy lawyer" defenses all appear to
>> > be calculated at belittling the efforts of the plaintiff whose intent
>> > is
>> > to prevent dishonest food labeling.
>>
>> My point is that it's not "dishonest food labeling". It's
>> "undefined food labeling". I'll grant you "slightly misleading",
>> but not "dishonest".
>
> We simply disagree or have differing ethical barometers. If you look at
> the Kraft CapriSun website I posted in this thread, I think there's lots
> of misleading information there. But I won't belabor the point.
>
>> After all, everything comes from nature. Even stuff made in a
>> laboratory.
>
> I guess if that was the message that Kraft was trying to convey--- that
> everything comes from nature--- your analogy might have weight. But do
> you really think that is what Kraft was attempting to convey? If not,
> what message do you think Kraft was trying to impart with their "All
> Natural" label on CapriSun containers?
>
> Emma


Emma, sometimes it's not a matter of what IS in the product as much as what
is NOT in the product. Maybe that's what the idiots were trying to
communicate when they designed the package.

Now, go find a child and teach him/her something about eating right, and
that child will teach his/her child, and things will get totally out of hand
and there won't be enough broccoli to feed all these smart eaters.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:18:32 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:26:49 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:45 -0700, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since that is the requirement, I guess that leaves out the CSPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. CSPI is well-known for being a crock. Sometimes
>>>>> they're right. Other times they just like to blow smoke. That's
>>>>> what brings in their funding, after all.
>>>>
>>>> Well known to whom?
>>>
>>> <yawn> There's that signature "bait" somebody was mentioning.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> It's a fair question. Some of what CSPI puts in its newsletter is
>> nitpicking, like when they tell readers that regular ice cream has too
>> much
>> fat in it. But, their articles are accurate and well documented.
>>
>> So, I suspect "crock" is well known only to you.
>
> OK, then. Since you haven't seen for yourself:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=CSPI&qt_s=Search+Groups>
>
> 7 of the first 10 articles posted to Usenet on the first page of
> Google hits are mocking CSPI (the other 3 are just quoting
> articles mentioning CSPI).
>
> *That's* who thinks they're crocks. I'm sure you can dig out
> another few thousand posters who think they're idiots, too.
>
> -sw

Thank you. Time to make dinner. I'll look at this with an open mind later or
tomorrow, or whenever the onslaught of teenagers subsides.

In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:19:55 -0500, Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> > If not, what message do you think Kraft was trying to impart with
> > their "All Natural" label on CapriSun containers?
>
> As a person of logic, it means absolutely nothing to me.

You said that you thought the label was "not dishonest" but "slightly
misleading". So, evidently you made some kind of value judgment about
it. If it meant nothing to you, then how could you say it was not
dishonest but slightly misleading? How can this label carry all the
properties of meaning nothing and being not dishonest and being slightly
misleading all at the same time?

You assert that you're a person of logic but I see no logic in that at
all.

Since you said it was not dishonest, I merely asked for your opinion on
what you think *Kraft* meant to convey by the use of the label "all
natural" but you refuse to answer. I can only suppose you can't think
of a reasonable answer that will comport with your previous statements.

Emma

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
> > Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was allegedly labeled
> > "All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high fructose
> > corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not legally
> > entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the complaint.
> > That would certainly make sense.
>
> I don't understand this "natural" thing. If I cook a hamburger patty,
> does that mean it is no longer natural? If I throw some ears of corn
> into a pot of boiling water, does that mean that they are no longer
> natural? HFCS is made from corn. How is that not natural?

This has already been well covered in this thread. I suggest that you
scan the thread so we don't have to repeat all that again.
>
> > This news item really grabbed my attention because I've had so many
> > problems with gluten in Kraft products that were allegedly wheat free.
> > Companies that run fast and loose in one area tend to abuse the
> > consumers' trust in other areas as well.
>
> Most gluten comes from wheat. Not all. Do you have a problem with
> wheat gluten, or just gluten in general?

Yes, I'm keenly aware that gliadin (aka gluten) is present in all forms
of wheat, barley and rye. I merely said "wheat" since that is usually
the offending substance and so as not to distract from the main issue.
And yes, I have celiac sprue.

In article >,
"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:

> Emma, sometimes it's not a matter of what IS in the product as much as what
> is NOT in the product. Maybe that's what the idiots were trying to
> communicate when they designed the package.

Exactly. The implication is that nothing unnatural or unwholesome is in
the product.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> Labeling as "natural"
>>> In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
>>> threatened to file a lawsuit against Cadbury Schweppes for labeling 7
>>> Up as "All Natural", despite containing high fructose corn syrup.
>>> While the FDA has no definition of "Natural", CSPI claims that HFCS
>>> is not a "natural" ingredient due to the high level of processing and
>>> the use of at least one genetically modifed (GMO) enzyme required to
>>> produce it.[19] In January 2007, Cadbury Schweppes agreed to stop
>>> calling 7 Up "All Natural".[
>>
>> I guess that means bullcrap ain't all-natural either, according to CSPI;
>> it is, after all, highly processed.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, I'm sure you're right, considering your massive background in food
> chemistry, and your hundreds of patents.

Ooo, OooOOo, you two got some good beef between you have you?!?


Shaun aRe

"tofuqueen" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Mar 30, 9:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>> "Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>> >> Morons will buy crap food for their kids no matter WHAT is (or isn't)
>> >> on
>> >> the
>> >> label, so the label doesn't matter at all. I often see fat kids with
>> >> fat
>> >> parents in the supermarket, cart loaded with Hi-C, litre bottles of
>> >> soda,
>> >> Twinkies and other crap. Not a fruit or vegetable in sight. Do you
>> >> think
>> >> better labeling would help these morons protect their children? I
>> >> don't,
>> >> unless some food company was honest enough to include the words "This
>> >> is
>> >> crap, and even a fat slob like you can't rationalize eating it".
>>
>> > I agree. Truly stupid people will buy it no matter what the package
>> > says. You're absolutely right in that regard.
>>
>> > And that is why it's important that more attention be paid to what
>> > ingredients are present in food marketed for children. If the studies
>> > are correct that HFCS is a significant contributor to the child obesity
>> > and diabetes epidemic, then we should get that crap out of foods
>> > marketed specifically to children. However, it cannot be ignored that
>> > many children just don't get enough exercise these days either. They
>> > spend far too much time in front of the television and XBox. I hardly
>> > ever see children just playing outside anymore. It's ridiculous.
>>
>> > Emma
>>
>> The solution I like is to start intensively teaching kids about the right
>> foods beginning in kindergarten, because so many parents don't do it at
>> home. But, I'd imagine that would run into opposition from the same twits
>> who object to sex education. "My kid came home and said it wasn't healthy
>> to
>> have mac & cheese and pepsi for dinner every night! You people have some
>> nerve meddling in my family's business".-
>
> I strongly agree. I've tried bringing health food versions of crap
> food to my son's preschool well over 20 years ago (before it was PC).
> I was met with criticism from every angle: the school, other parents
> which resulted in the kids too.
>
> This year, as a joke on Halloween, our favorite little guys came over
> for a treat with their dad (aged 5 and 3). My daughter had just left
> to trick or treat and left her miniature carrots on the table with the
> crap candy. As a JOKE, I offered the two little boys carrots and they
> happily took them and started eating them and threw a few in their
> bag. I couldn't stop laughing. Then I thought I'd try it (again, as
> a joke) when kids came over who I knew. It was so successful that I
> did it with everyone...I also offered them the crap candy. But you
> know what? I swear to you, not because I had an agenda ( I did
> not...this was done accidentally and then as a joke) the kids liked
> the carrots! Every age kid...lots of preteens and early teens came
> around (our neighborhood fills up 3 school buses) and several thanked
> me and asked for more.
>
> Also...at my daughter's teacher conferences, I sat down with her home
> ec teacher and talked with her for a few minutes. She said that she
> is teaching a section on nutrition. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA and
> LOLOLOLOLOLOL. My daughter could be teaching the class because the
> teacher knew so little about nutrition. Honestly, my daughter has
> come home telling me things about meat that are simply not true. I
> know enough about nutrition to be teaching the class better than the
> teacher. In the beginning of the class, parents were asked to send in
> ingredients (donate and your kid would get extra credit). Everything
> was "white" (flour, sugar, rice) No fresh foods were cooked ( would
> have gladly donated veggies and fruit!!!!) The kids were learning how
> to make high fat, high sugar and cholesterol laden foods. Period.
> I've spent 12 years trying to teach her to make healthy choices and
> then she takes a class that contradicts all that I taught her.
>
> When all is said and done, no matter how hard we try with our kids;
> they are more likely to do what their friends do. Have you ever seen
> what's in the vending machines at the schools? Plain bottled water
> isn't good enough...they have to have the stuff that has glucose and
> dyes in it. To my daughter, "it's just a dollar!" So what's my
> point? There are parents out there that encourage, advocate and teach
> healthy eating....yet we let our children go at some point and they
> make their choices. Sadly, from my point of view, the schools are not
> sending the right message. THANK GOD dd does not want to buy lunch,
> so we don't have _that_ issue. She has gone through 1st grade and is
> in the middle of 7th right now and has never once said, "mom, can I
> buy lunch?" To her it looks "icky" and it would interfere with the
> social time (standing in line would take away time from talking to
> someone). What a crack up.

SMART Momma, lucky kids to have you, dig the approach ',;~}~


Shaun aRe

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> "tofuqueen" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On Mar 30, 9:51 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>> "Emma Thackery" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Morons will buy crap food for their kids no matter WHAT is (or isn't)
>>> >> on
>>> >> the
>>> >> label, so the label doesn't matter at all. I often see fat kids with
>>> >> fat
>>> >> parents in the supermarket, cart loaded with Hi-C, litre bottles of
>>> >> soda,
>>> >> Twinkies and other crap. Not a fruit or vegetable in sight. Do you
>>> >> think
>>> >> better labeling would help these morons protect their children? I
>>> >> don't,
>>> >> unless some food company was honest enough to include the words "This
>>> >> is
>>> >> crap, and even a fat slob like you can't rationalize eating it".
>>>
>>> > I agree. Truly stupid people will buy it no matter what the package
>>> > says. You're absolutely right in that regard.
>>>
>>> > And that is why it's important that more attention be paid to what
>>> > ingredients are present in food marketed for children. If the studies
>>> > are correct that HFCS is a significant contributor to the child
>>> > obesity
>>> > and diabetes epidemic, then we should get that crap out of foods
>>> > marketed specifically to children. However, it cannot be ignored that
>>> > many children just don't get enough exercise these days either. They
>>> > spend far too much time in front of the television and XBox. I hardly
>>> > ever see children just playing outside anymore. It's ridiculous.
>>>
>>> > Emma
>>>
>>> The solution I like is to start intensively teaching kids about the
>>> right
>>> foods beginning in kindergarten, because so many parents don't do it at
>>> home. But, I'd imagine that would run into opposition from the same
>>> twits
>>> who object to sex education. "My kid came home and said it wasn't
>>> healthy to
>>> have mac & cheese and pepsi for dinner every night! You people have some
>>> nerve meddling in my family's business".-
>>
>> I strongly agree. I've tried bringing health food versions of crap
>> food to my son's preschool well over 20 years ago (before it was PC).
>> I was met with criticism from every angle: the school, other parents
>> which resulted in the kids too.
>>
>
>
> Kids are smarter eaters than parents give them credit for. When my son was
> about 8, we threw a big Halloween party for him, 15 of his friends, and
> their parents. We provided a huge spread of raw veggies & dips, including
> hummus, a big bowl of cut-up fruit, and a couple of sheet pizzas. The kids
> descended on the veggies & fruit like a school of piranha. Nothing but
> empty dishes left in about 1/2 hour. They barely touched the pizza. The
> parents took care of that. One mom-dad team said they never knew their
> kids would eat fruits & vegetables like what we'd served. Friggin'
> morons. All you have to do is put the food in front of them and make it
> look nice. Kids will try almost anything.

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!! ',;~}~


Shaun aRe

Oh, gawd, this friggin' fudge - packing idiot is back...

<plink/>

--
Best
Greg


"Shaun aRe" <shaun_areaALL_SUFFERINGzenlunatic@beatsSPAMnheat. plus.com>
wrote in message ...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >>
> >>> Labeling as "natural"
> >>> In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
> >>> threatened to file a lawsuit against Cadbury Schweppes for labeling 7
> >>> Up as "All Natural", despite containing high fructose corn syrup.
> >>> While the FDA has no definition of "Natural", CSPI claims that HFCS
> >>> is not a "natural" ingredient due to the high level of processing and
> >>> the use of at least one genetically modifed (GMO) enzyme required to
> >>> produce it.[19] In January 2007, Cadbury Schweppes agreed to stop
> >>> calling 7 Up "All Natural".[
> >>
> >> I guess that means bullcrap ain't all-natural either, according to
CSPI;
> >> it is, after all, highly processed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I'm sure you're right, considering your massive background in food
> > chemistry, and your hundreds of patents.
>
> Ooo, OooOOo, you two got some good beef between you have you?!?
>
>
> Shaun aRe
>
>

wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:06:35 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess that means bullcrap ain't all-natural either, according to
>> CSPI; it is, after all, highly processed.
>
> I don't think I'd want it in my BBQ but if you do tell me and I won't
> bother going to Wenatchee, I'll stop in Cashmere instead.

Outta context to the point made, but feel free to stop wherever you want.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mar 28, 4:34 pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> tert in seattle > wrote:
>
> > well as long as we're all being obtuse... that corn syrup
> > probably came from a hybrid (genetically modified) variety... in
> > fact probably all industrially farmed corn is hybrid
>
> I think it's safe to say that Indians started hybridizing
> corn thousands of years ago and there is no such thing as
> a wild strain of corn in agriculture.
>
> Where you draw the line between normal hybridizing and
> genetic engineering, I'm not sure.
>
> Steve

I would assume that normal hybridizing only introduces genes from
other varieties of corn, while genetic engineering introduces genes
from unrelated species (soy, nuts, eggs, chickens, tomatoes, people,
etc.) that would be impossible to introduce through natural
hybridization. There have been a couple of instances where GMO
products that were all but guaranteed to be safe caused severe
allergic reactions to people not allergic to the parent plant.

wd43

Charlene wrote on 2 Apr 2007 14:21:11 -0700:


C> I would assume that normal hybridizing only introduces genes
C> from other varieties of corn, while genetic engineering
C> introduces genes from unrelated species (soy, nuts, eggs,
C> chickens, tomatoes, people, etc.)

What is a species?

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not