Outside interests defeated GMO labeling again. Apparently using the same tactics they used in Ca. One story I read reported that out of $22,000,000.00 spent on defeating it $555 was from in state. Actually I think that might have been a misprint. It started out with 66% favoring it before they were outspent 6 to 1. I'm sure that I will eat GMO foods in the future just as I do now. I just want to know what I'm eating and I don't believe for one second that a label with that information will raise the price one bit. I don't think that we should ever be deprived of information. Consumers reports confirmed that the extra $400 claimed in a families annual food bill was a lie. I would be interested to find out if other people here believe that we have a right to know. It will come up again and I would be willing to bet that outside interests will spend heavily again since they have been successful twice now. Are there people here who don't want to know or don't think that we have a right to know what we're eating?
Most other countries refuse to import GMO foods, & that's kind of ironic since generally the first defense for GMOs is making less expensive food for 3rd world countries. If that's the case, then why are we eating it?
Most other countries refuse to import GMO foods, & that's kind of ironic since generally the first defense for GMOs is making less expensive food for 3rd world countries. If that's the case, then why are we eating it?
Everyone has a right to know what they're eating. If you're really that worried about it it's perfectly legal to grow and raise your own food.
I don't understand a lot of the hysteria against GMO foods. If you've ever written code you know if you get your code wrong just a little bit it wont compile. Slightly modifying the wrong genetic code of a banana isn't going to compile into a banana with tentacles. A lot of the anti GMO hysteria is on par with the anti-vaccine movement.
There's lots of room for improvement in agriculture. One of the biggest unsung heros of agriculture is Norman Borlaug. He spent the majority of his life developing wheat that would grow in really harsh environments. He's credited with "saving a billion lives." Borlaug accomplished this using careful selection of idea crops and natural breeding methods. No genetic modifications. But it took many years of his life and absolute dedication. Just for a single crop, wheat.
Genetic modification can save valuable time. Climate change will have huge implications for agriculture. This is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the USDA and Monsanto.
The biggest threat I see is companies like Monsanto eventually owning all 'food' through genetic patents. If unmodified species of crop are unable to grow due to a changing climate they will become extinct. We may well be left with only modified foods that require a 'license' to grow, a situation similar to software licensing. There is an open source genetic modification community with modifications happening in garages instead of labs. But they're no where near as powerful as Monsanto.
Norman Borlaug on genetic modification: Q: Has a fear of genetically modified food exacerbated the world food supply problem?
A: I think so. A good example is the Bt gene, which can be incorporated into cotton to reduce the number of applications of insecticides greatly. In corn, that same gene controls certain insects and cuts down the amount of insecticide needed. But people say, ‘OK, if that’s incorporated, it’s not permitting insects to multiply, so it must be deleterious for humans, too.’ But this isn’t necessarily so. A large percentage of U.S. corn has the Bt gene in it to control certain pests, and it’s been so for more than a decade. There’s no good evidence it’s done any harm. This technology has brought major economic and environmental benefits.
But when we ship this type of corn in U.S. AID (Agency for International Development) to help undernourished and hungry people, it gets to be a political football. In Zimbabwe, recently, the president refused to accept this kind of food for his starving people. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-07-2013).]
Normans wheat success sounds phenomenal. What Monsanto and Dow are doing is modifying crops so that they can apply more poison or modifying them so that the crops produce their own poison (herbicides and pesticides). Then the bugs and weeds become resistant and it takes ever more poison to accomplish the same thing. Plus I'm not in favor of any company owning patents on food and completely controlling the future of agriculture. It's already hard to find food that is not originated by Monsanto and the farmers are pretty much committed to Monsanto. I'm just saying "freedom of information". My right to know, that's all.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Everyone has a right to know what they're eating. If you're really that worried about it it's perfectly legal to grow and raise your own food.
I don't understand a lot of the hysteria against GMO foods. If you've ever written code you know if you get your code wrong just a little bit it wont compile. Slightly modifying the wrong genetic code of a banana isn't going to compile into a banana with tentacles. A lot of the anti GMO hysteria is on par with the anti-vaccine movement.
There's lots of room for improvement in agriculture. One of the biggest unsung heros of agriculture is Norman Borlaug. He spent the majority of his life developing wheat that would grow in really harsh environments. He's credited with "saving a billion lives." Borlaug accomplished this using careful selection of idea crops and natural breeding methods. No genetic modifications. But it took many years of his life and absolute dedication. Just for a single crop, wheat.
Genetic modification can save valuable time. Climate change will have huge implications for agriculture. This is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the USDA and Monsanto.
The biggest threat I see is companies like Monsanto eventually owning all 'food' through genetic patents. If unmodified species of crop are unable to grow due to a changing climate they will become extinct. We may well be left with only modified foods that require a 'license' to grow, a situation similar to software licensing. There is an open source genetic modification community with modifications happening in garages instead of labs. But they're no where near as powerful as Monsanto.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-07-2013).]
Genetic modification can save valuable time. Climate change will have huge implications for agriculture. This is not just my opinion. It's the opinion of the USDA and Monsanto.
The biggest threat is what it can do the person who eat it, it can have adverse affects on your health, but then why would Monsanto the huge company who makes the crap think its bad, they are profiting from it. as well as the winds drift from a farm that has their GMO crops to another farmers crop and then they steal that farmers crops saying he planted their GMO seeds without their permission or some other crap. and of course the government is going along with it, think graft, bribes, and more that those in charge of those departments are making from Monsanto.
think about it, its just population control on a world wide basis, that stuff will kill you. we eat nothing that we don't grow so we know for sure what's in it.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 11-07-2013).]
Originally posted by dratts: Normans wheat success sounds phenomenal.
I agree, it's really a great story of what a single man can do for civilization.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: What Monsanto and Dow are doing is modifying crops so that they can apply more poison or modifying them so that the crops produce their own poison (herbicides and pesticides). Then the bugs and weeds become resistant and it takes ever more poison to accomplish the same thing.
I see that as an organic farming practices vs non-organic. While it's true that are making modifications for plants to be "Round-Up proof" and such I do not see these as the most beneficial modifications they're making.
I edited my post to include a quote that discusses the Bt gene. There are modifications possible to improve pest and disease resistance, the Bt gene is a very good example.
quote
Originally posted by dratts: I'm just saying "freedom of information". My right to know, that's all.
I agree 100%.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: The biggest threat is what it can do the person who eat it, it can have adverse affects on your health
Purposefully poisoning your revenue stream is not something they're going to do. It would be like Southwest Airlines killing all their passengers.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: as well as the winds drift from a farm that has their GMO crops to another farmers crop and then they steal that farmers crops saying he planted their GMO seeds without their permission or some other crap.
Yeah that's an interesting problem. For that reason I do not support genetic patents. At some point our species is going to have to put people before profits.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-07-2013).]
The thing that gets me about "Round-up Ready" food is it's safe to eat, yet the guy spraying the crops has to wear full body PPE with a respirator. Monsanto has made some good advances, but I don't care for their heavy-handed legal practices with small farms. If you're growing organic and your crop gets cross seeded or pollinated from a nearby farm from seed, etc. blowing in the wind, you now owe Monsanto royalties for using their licensed product. You also have to pay them to continue using any of your organic grain that might have been contaminated, or dump it.
Purposefully poisoning your revenue stream is not something they're going to do. It would be like Southwest Airlines killing all their passengers.
Keep believing that, that's just what they want everyone to believe, me thinks you need to rent that new video I just started a thread about, Bounty killers.
Originally posted by Formula88: The thing that gets me about "Round-up Ready" food is it's safe to eat, yet the guy spraying the crops has to wear full body PPE with a respirator.
It's my understanding that glyphosate oxidizes fairly quickly and is generally harmless after that.
Since 80% of all packaged food is GMO, can't we just assume that all food is unless labeled otherwise?
If a food is labeled "organic" it cannot be GMO so we already have a labeling law of sorts.
Organic does not guarantee GMO free. It indicates that the farmer did not apply herbicides or pesticides and that his field was free of those for a specified amount of time. 5 years, I think.
Genetically modified foods don't bother me. My body breaks them down like everything else. Now, if they are producing toxins, that is a different story.
I do not think that all genetic modifying is harmful. I have the impression that it is in general a specialized, sped up way to accomplish the same thing as selective breeding. What I'm not sure of is the long term effects. Are the genetically engineerd salmon farmed in an isolated environment? Is there a chance that they could escape to the wild and could they inner breed? Would inner breeding require that they spawn in the same places as the natural salmon? Since salmon return to spawn in their birthplace would that prevent Genetically Modified salmon from returnig to spawn in the same place as wild salmon? Science can go wrong just as easily as it goes right. Our capitalistic system which I admire for many reasons doesn't guarantee that science will be used in the most beneficial way. It pretty much guarantees that science will be used in the most profitable way which may be beneficial or not.
I do not think that all genetic modifying is harmful. I have the impression that it is in general a specialized, sped up way to accomplish the same thing as selective breeding. What I'm not sure of is the long term effects. Are the genetically engineerd salmon farmed in an isolated environment? Is there a chance that they could escape to the wild and could they inner breed? Would inner breeding require that they spawn in the same places as the natural salmon? Since salmon return to spawn in their birthplace would that prevent Genetically Modified salmon from returnig to spawn in the same place as wild salmon? Science can go wrong just as easily as it goes right. Our capitalistic system which I admire for many reasons doesn't guarantee that science will be used in the most beneficial way. It pretty much guarantees that science will be used in the most profitable way which may be beneficial or not.
Thanksgiving is coming, try buying a turkey that was raised by someone who didn't use the special feed, see that is what makes you fall asleep after eating. it has something in it to make them grow faster and that is what makes you fall asleep. that's not all that good for you ether.
Thanksgiving is coming, try buying a turkey that was raised by someone who didn't use the special feed, see that is what makes you fall asleep after eating. it has something in it to make them grow faster and that is what makes you fall asleep. that's not all that good for you ether.
Steve
I know that it's going to be hard if not impossible to avoid GMO foods. The more they try to keep me in the dark the more suspicious I get though.
Organic does not guarantee GMO free. It indicates that the farmer did not apply herbicides or pesticides and that his field was free of those for a specified amount of time. 5 years, I think.
Umm-no. It means a lot more than that if it falls under the different association certifications for being 100% (or as close to it as possible) organic. Even the tightest regulated association tho, makes exceptions for drought conditions, disease, injury, and several other unavoidable situations. There is a big difference too, between Non-GMO and Organic. Anyone who, in the last 5--maybe 10 years has ever eaten in a public burger joint, fried chicken place, pizza parlor and 99% of the other restraunts has eaten GMO and non-organic foods. This includes (but is not limited to) Burger King, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, KFC, Jack-in-theBox,Taco Bell, Hardees--and all the rest of the nationally known franchise food joints.
I'm more concerned with COOL than I am with GMO labeling. So much mis-information and dis-information out there (including in this thread) regarding both organic and GMO, I rarely pay attention to any of it anymore. And--Remember this thread?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/094517.html Here's the link it contains----had to issue a correction and change the sensationalist title after it was pointed out to the idiots at CBS and CNN that the grass in question was NOT GM. (there is a correction cited at the bottom of the article.) But it sure got a lot of uninformed people's panties in the predicted wad for a couple of days. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301...texas-cattle-deaths/
Thanksgiving is coming, try buying a turkey that was raised by someone who didn't use the special feed, see that is what makes you fall asleep after eating. it has something in it to make them grow faster and that is what makes you fall asleep. that's not all that good for you ether.
Steve
What would that "something" be that makes you sleepy after eating a Thanksgiving turkey dinner? Certainly not tryptophan.
Originally posted by dratts: I know that it's going to be hard if not impossible to avoid GMO foods. The more they try to keep me in the dark the more suspicious I get though.
all those overpriced turkeys you get at the grocery store are feed L - TRYPTOPHAN to make them grow faster, that's what makes you sleepy, I had to ask Melanie I couldn't remember, then they are injected with saline to plump their breasts up to add poundage to the birds. So all those big fat bird you buy at the grocery store are full of drugs along with cyanide and others in the feed. makes your mouth water now doesn't it.
and that's not GMO modified foods, that's a turkey or chicken. so why do we not want to know what's in our foods? they should all be labeled with what they are feed, injected, made.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
What would that "something" be that makes you sleepy after eating a Thanksgiving turkey dinner? Certainly not tryptophan.
No Don, it's L - TRYPTOPHAN
L-tryptophan is an amino acid, a protein building block that can be found in many plant and animal proteins. L-tryptophan is called an “essential” amino acid because the body can’t make it. It must be acquired from food.
L-tryptophan is used for insomnia, sleep apnea, depression, anxiety, facial pain, a severe form of premenstrual syndrome called premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), smoking cessation, grinding teeth during sleep (bruxism), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette's syndrome, and to improve athletic performance. How does it work?
L-tryptophan is naturally found in animal and plant proteins. L-tryptophan is considered an essential amino acid because our bodies can't make it. It is important for the development and functioning of many organs in the body. After absorbing L-tryptophan from food, our bodies convert it to 5-HTP (5-hyrdoxytryptophan), and then to serotonin. Serotonin is a hormone that transmits signals between nerve cells. It also causes blood vessels to narrow. Changes in the level of serotonin in the brain can alter mood.
Patently FALSE. 1. tryptophan is a natural chemical in ALL turkeys and most other meats as well. It's an essential amino acid, meaning that the human body can't manufacture it, but it requires it to produce niacin and therefore serotonin. 2. tryptophan is NOT any part of any feed additive or growth implant, and in fact, has for many years been banned by the FDA for any kind of use outside it's natural occurrence.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-07-2013).]
And just to be clear............ I have nothing against labeling GMO products, either on the wholesale (supply) or retail (end consumer) side of things.
The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to table. <clip> Consumers purchase organic products expecting that they maintain their organic integrity from farm to market, and USDA is committed to meeting these expectations. No matter where it was grown, if a product has the USDA Organic label on it, it wasn’t produced with GMOs.
I have not been a farmer. I was passing on information from an organic farmer that was at least ten years old. Some of the references here state that a certain amount of accidental GMO contamination is tolerated. Please take my information as not current and from a farmer rather than from actual knowledge of regulations.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
Umm-no. It means a lot more than that if it falls under the different association certifications for being 100% (or as close to it as possible) organic. Even the tightest regulated association tho, makes exceptions for drought conditions, disease, injury, and several other unavoidable situations. There is a big difference too, between Non-GMO and Organic. Anyone who, in the last 5--maybe 10 years has ever eaten in a public burger joint, fried chicken place, pizza parlor and 99% of the other restraunts has eaten GMO and non-organic foods. This includes (but is not limited to) Burger King, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, KFC, Jack-in-theBox,Taco Bell, Hardees--and all the rest of the nationally known franchise food joints.
I'm more concerned with COOL than I am with GMO labeling. So much mis-information and dis-information out there (including in this thread) regarding both organic and GMO, I rarely pay attention to any of it anymore. And--Remember this thread?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/094517.html Here's the link it contains----had to issue a correction and change the sensationalist title after it was pointed out to the idiots at CBS and CNN that the grass in question was NOT GM. (there is a correction cited at the bottom of the article.) But it sure got a lot of uninformed people's panties in the predicted wad for a couple of days. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301...texas-cattle-deaths/
L-TRYPTOPHAN Side Effects & Safety L-tryptophan is POSSIBLY UNSAFE when taken by mouth. It has been linked to over 1500 reports of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) and 37 deaths. EMS is a neurological condition with symptoms that include fatigue; intense muscle pain; nerve pain; skin changes; baldness; rash; and pain and swelling affecting the joints, connective tissue, lungs, heart, and liver. Symptoms tend to improve over time, but some people may still experience symptoms up to 2 years after they develop EMS. Some people report that their symptoms have never gone away completely.
In 1990, L-tryptophan was recalled from the market due to these safety concerns. After the limitation of L-tryptophan products, the number of EMS cases dropped sharply. The exact cause of EMS in patients taking L-tryptophan is unknown, but some evidence suggests it may be due to contaminated L-tryptophan products. About 95% of all EMS cases were traced to L-tryptophan produced by a single manufacturer in Japan. Currently, under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, L-tryptophan is available and marketed as a dietary supplement.
L-tryptophan can cause some side effects such as heartburn, stomach pain, belching and gas, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. It can also cause headache, lightheadedness, drowsiness, dry mouth, visual blurring, muscle weakness, and sexual problems.
Special Precautions & Warnings: Pregnancy and breast-feeding: L-tryptophan is LIKELY UNSAFE in pregnancy because it may harm the unborn child. Not enough is known about the safety of L-tryptophan during breast-feeding. Avoid using L-tryptophan during pregnancy and breast-feeding.
A white blood cell disorder called eosinophilia: L-tryptophan might make this condition worse. L-tryptophan has been associated with the development of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS).
Liver or kidney disease: L-tryptophan might make these conditions worse since it has been associated with the development of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS).
Lawsuit Filed to Force FDA to Protect Public Health and Ban Arsenic in Feed for Chicken, Turkey, and Hogs
Today attorneys at Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit on behalf of CFS, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and seven other U.S. food safety, agriculture, public health, and environmental groups to compel FDA to respond to the groups’ three year-old petition which calls for immediate withdrawal of FDA’s approval of arsenic-containing compounds as feed additives for food animals. Filed the same day Consumer Reports released an alarming study on antibiotic resistance in turkey, the lawsuit highlights yet another gaping hole in FDA oversight of animal feed additives.
Arsenic is commonly added to poultry feed for the FDA-approved purposes of inducing faster weight gain on less feed, and creating the perceived appearance of a healthy color in meat from chickens, turkeys, and hogs. Yet new studies increasingly link these practices to serious human health problems. Today’s lawsuit seeks to force FDA to fulfill its mandate to better protect the public from arsenic. The 2009 Petition presented abundant science to FDA that organic arsenic compounds—like those added to animal feed—are directly toxic to animals and humans, but also that they convert to cancer-causing, inorganic arsenic inside of chickens, in manure-treated soil and in humans. Additional testing since submission of the 2009 Petition demonstrates even greater cause for public concern and therefore greater urgency meriting FDA’s prompt attention.
“FDA could easily and immediately fix the problem,” said Paige Tomaselli, senior staff attorney with Center for Food Safety, “but instead puts its head in the sand. We can only conclude the FDA is catering to the companies that continue to sell products containing arsenic that ends up in our food supply.”
It's my understanding that glyphosate oxidizes fairly quickly and is generally harmless after that.
Agreed on all your other points.
Yeah, I wasn't saying that it makes the food that poisonous. It's the apparent irony of someone having to wear full PPE gear to protect themselves from the stuff that we call "safe" to eat.
Thank you for posting that. I saw it online and don't know the original source. Now it makes me want to do an experiment and see what would really happen.
There is absolutlely NO difference between Tryptophan and L-Tryptophan. "Tryptophan is just the genericlly and most commonly used name for L-Tryptophan. Type "Tryptophan" into any search box and you will find it leads right to L-Tryptophan or type "L-tryptophan" into a search box and you will find it redirects to tryptophan.
There IS a difference between L-Tryptophan and D-Tryptophan (another naturally occuring amino acid) but it is found only in certain peptides. They both do the same thing and the only difference is in molecular orientation. They are known as stereo isomers, which mean they have exactly the same molecular make up, same sequence of bonded atoms. IF they were structural isomers, then there would be a difference, but they aren't. Again, Tryptophan or L-tryptohan is NOT what causes people to sleep after a Thanksgiving meal--period. It's the heavy meal of carbohydrates. Many foods have as much tryptophan as turkey--or more than turkey does. Grams of tryptophan per 100 grams of food: Turkey-0.24 gr tryptophan per 100 grams. Beef-0.23gr tryptophan per 100 grams. Pork chop-0.25 tryptophan per 100 grams. Egg White-1.00 full gram tryptophan per 100 grams. Cod-0.70 gram tryptophan per 100 grams. Lamb chop-0.21 gram tryptophan per 100 grams. Oats-0.23 gram typtophan per 100 grams.
The belief that tryptophan or L tryptophan in turkey causes sleep is nothing more than an old wive's tale and internet rumor.
Formula88--in IE, right click--properties--it will show the original URL for the photo. In Chrome, right click--Inspect element. The URL back to the URL's source will show up highlighted.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-07-2013).]
Moving on..... Of the millions of acres of grain and other commodities grown here, only a small percentage is directly edible to humans. For instance, only about 1-to-5% of the corn grown here is sweet corn--that is, for human consumption--the cans of corn you see in the store or the ears you see in the produce or frozen food section.
But, that only tells part of the story. 40% of that sweet corn--roughly 1/4 million acres worth in 2012, was Monsanto GMO corn. (HT, or Roundup Ready) So, almost 1/2 of the corn you see in your grocer is probably GMO corn.
As of Oct 2013, according to the USDA, there is no GMO wheat gown in the US. The return on wheat for farmers has declined significantly over the last few decades compared to corn and soybeans and the wheat germ and plant is more complex on the molecular scale, thus there has not been a big rush to genetically alter or improve on existing varieties and strains. That could change should a problem arise in our wheat production and stocks--or if overseas nations have a wheat harvest failure and there arises a sudden need on humanitarian basis for an increased # of acres or a need to radically improve the yeild/acre of existing wheat fields.
But, overall, Most of the corn, soybeans, and cotton planted and harvested in the US today is genetically enhanced or modified. 93% of soybeans is HT--Herbicide tolerant. (usually referred to as "Roundup Ready". 85% of all US cotton is HT and BT. BT mean Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria has been infused in the crop. 85% of all US corn is HT. 76% of all US corn is BT.
The reason I threw soybeans and cotton in, is that soybean meal, cotton seed meal, and cottonseed hulls make up a very large part of this country's livestock and poultry feedstocks. Sometimes mixed with grain, sometimes not. Sometimes in raw form, often, cooked into big tubs with molasses and other things as a feed supplement. Sometimes pressed into cubes or pellets--large or small depending on the animal size that is being fed. Unless that feed or supplement is labeld with a USDA tag stating it is 100% Organic and made with 100% Non GMO sourced ingrediants, it is most certainly genetically modified livestock feed. If you aren't using one of the feeds from sources such as is listed at the following link, odds are very good that your livestock is being fed GMO feed. Non-GMOfeeds should carry a statement saying they are part of the Non-GMO Project Standard. (These are just 2 of several lists available) http://www.nongmosourcebook...malfeedsuppliers.php http://www.nongmoshoppinggu...s/feed-and-seed.html
Be carefull, when selecting your food and your livestock's food. The word "Natural" means nothing!! It must say USDA 100% Organic, carry the USDA seal, and say Certified Non GMO. Everything else is GMO today.
There is one other option, and that is to buy from a Certified Grassfed source. To be able to sell under that banner, you may not have any GMO feeds or feed stock ON your property, and cannot fertilize with anything except manure from livestock that was on the Grassfed program from womb to tomb. No insecticides, no pesticides, no fungicides and no commercial fertilize can be used on the livestock's forage or hay.
Yes, you read that right. 249.25 lbs of beef will cost you $2789. That, works out to $11/lb average--some will be hamburger, some will be hot dogs, some will be T-bone, but even for the ribeye, $11/lb is at least $3 more than you can buy it in your local meat market.
But, your choice--enjoy your non-GMO meat. (Hey--shipping is free tho!!)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-07-2013).]
Although the topic seems to have veered away from labeling and the right to know what we are eating I appreciate all the information posted, especially Maryjanes.
