Chinese Army bans all GMO Grains and Oils

[AceAcme]

Wow - what do they know that the American public has yet to learn, thanks to the diligent & perverse work of corporate snow blowers ?

"...The Chinese army this month began ordering all military supply stations to only allow the purchase of non-GMO grain and food, oil due to health and safety concerns regarding GMOs, according to Food Democracy Now! The decision is viewed as an important step toward the government’s anticipated ban on the import of all GMO grains and oilseeds within the next two years..."

...The Chinese army is the world’s largest military force, with a strength of approximately 2,285,000 personnel, about 0.18% of the country’s population...

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/may/14/breaking_chinese_army_bans_all_GMO_grains_and_oil/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. There was a recent study

in which it seems to have been shown that microRNA from GMO foods ingested by the study animals showed up in the animals. I don't recall if the authors were Chinese, but they did have names consistent with that part of the world.

[AceAcme]

3. Perhaps it was this report?

How GMO Foods Damage Human DNA

http://www.ecopedia.com/health/how-gmo-damage-human-dna/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. It was one of the studies mentioned in that link.

And yes, it does look like it was a group of Chinese authors. Thanks for the link.

[ag_dude]

8. Please link to the actual study.

If a person linked to a story on "ProGMOSite.org" it would be called out as bull shit in about half a second.

The website mentioned above doesn't actually reference the explicit studies it cites, just generic references to "Norwegian study", etc. A big problem mucking up the 'debate' on the subject is sites like that taking findings out of context.

Linking directly to the studies you are citing instead of sites with agendas would solve that problem.

[AceAcme]

9. The GMO debate is over...

for the Chinese. They have decided to protect their soldiers.

[ag_dude]

12. I don't understand why you think that picture is relevant.

I asked what study he/she was citing.

It's not a difficult question.

[AceAcme]

13. Show and tell

The OP of this thread is about the Chinese Army and it's decision to protect its soldiers from GMOs. Thus the picture of Chinese soldiers is altogether relevant.

Your interest in a study that you could find on your own is a peripheral matter. The Chinese have already decided. There is no debate about GMOs. They are protecting their soldiers. Case closed. Thus your demand that someone else look up a study for you might well be judged to be irrelevant. But I am nothing if not democratic, so you are welcome to go asking for the study, or you can take some initiative and find it yourself.

By the way, you don't mean to suggest that Ms. Wannamaker, my kindergarten teacher, was wrong about show and tell, do you?

[ag_dude]

14. I'm not asking them to look up a study.

They already looked it up and cited it. I'm not demanding anything, I asked what study they were citing.

Why such animosity for such a simple question?

There are literally thousands of studies that have been done on GMO's in the past two decades, if you are going to cite a specific one that found an issue you need to cite it because there are just so many that didn't.

If you do just a random search of the ICGEB database, there are only two that refer to microRNA in their title, neither of which are about the subject the original poster was referring to.

Simple question, what study was it?

[Orrex]

15. WHY DO YOU HATE CHINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!

[AceAcme]

17. Yes, indeed. Why?

Couldn't agree with you more. The Chinese have looked carefully into the matter, apparently applying non-corporate science, and as a result they have shitcanned the GMOs to protect their soldiers. Wise move. No need for anyone to hate on them for acting with wisdom.

That is what the OP is about. It's a fact. It does not cite any study at all. It just reports the fact that China is protecting its troops -- As America ought to protect its citizens (and the rest of the planet).

"A journey of a thousand miles {toward GMO sanity} begins with one step."
~ Confucius (adapted)

[Orrex]

18. Meh.

Your posts are stuffed full of more propaganda than the Chairman's little red book, so it's hard to filter through it.

Regardless, the fact that China has decided not to use GMO foods doesn't prove that they're unsafe. Far from it, in fact. It could as readily be a trade tactic to restrict import of US goods.

We can discern very little about the value of the actual science based on this move by China. It certainly doesn't offset the numerous prior (and non-corporate) studies showing that GMO foods pose no risk.

[ag_dude]

20. Nobody is hating on them.

I'm asking what "recent study" Erich Bloodaxe BSN as referring to.

Between you and him you have typed about 500 words without even taking two seconds to even TRY to name the "recent study".

[AceAcme]

23. That's because the OP is actually about a news story reporting a fact, not a study

It would be great if people would comment on the fact that resulted in the news story in the OP: China is protecting it's soldiers from GMO and its degenerative impacts.

As for the study you seek, I have no knowledge about it, have not referenced it in the OP or elsewhere, and cannot assist you. Good luck finding the information you want.

[jberryhill]

30. "China is protecting it's soldiers"

If such a decision was made, what is it that leads you to conclude such a decision was not taken on the basis of economic factors.

I realize China is a word leader in environmental health and food safety, but I'm curious about how you conclude that the decision was made on the basis of "protecting its soldiers" rather than "protecting its suppliers".

[ag_dude]

31. One correction - China is banning them.

Because they THINK they are protecting them but there is no solid scientific proof of that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. I didn't save the link.

But there was a recent (last week or two i think) posting that did actually link to the study.

I leave it as an exercise to you to use the info provided to go google up the study yourself, if you want to read it. You'll have to do the exact same searches I would, and you're the one who wants to go read it, so it seems more reasonable to me that you be the one who goes and finds it again.

[ag_dude]

11. That's not how references work

If you are going to refer to something it's your responsibility to actually name the study itself.

If I cited something as "go Google it yourself" in a paper I'd be run out of the building.

If you don't even remember the title of the study, I'll just assume you made the study up the same way so many people in the GMO discussion do.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. I'm sorry, is this an academic paper?

I didn't provide an abstract, a summary, references, or methodologies or data either.

I had no idea a post on DU was held to the same standards as peer reviewed publications.

I had no idea because I've never seen it in any other post I've read here yet.

You want to read the article, you are free to do so. You don't need my blessing.

And I love it that you'll just 'assume I made it up' because I refuse to do your work for you - AFTER you saw that somebody else found a link to a website that also referred to the study, and even gave you the year it came out to narrow it down.

You're free to make whatever ignorant assumptions you want, and to remain ignorant because you're too lazy to go do a little googling on your own, rather than demand other people spoonfeed you.

[ag_dude]

19. Okay, I'll read it.

Just let me know what study it was.

You just typed 150 words without taking 2 seconds to say what study it is you were referring to.

What was the "recent study" that you read?

I'm assuming you made it up because you're following a well defined formula that the anti-GMO crowd follows. You refer to a "study" when you're in fact referring to a website that claims they found a study. You don't link to scientific papers, you link to individual websites. When you are confronted regarding the lack of solid evidence that you are claiming you are referring to you, you resort to ad hominem attacks and change the subject to anything you can.

It's a cliche.

All I'm asking you is what "recent study" you read that found those conclusions regarding microRNA. There's no need to get snarky, just say which "recent study" it was that you read.

[NickB79]

24. That study was later discredited

I'm pretty sure this is the discussion here on DU you're referencing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024941681

I posted the follow-up study that shot down the miRNA transfer study in Post #9:

AsianScientist (Jul. 1, 2013) – New research refutes an earlier study that genetic elements from plants can make it into an eater’s bloodstream, calling it a ‘false positive.’

In 2011 and 2012, research from China’s Nanjing University made international headlines with reports that after mice ate, bits of genetic material from the plants they’d ingested could make it into their bloodstreams intact and turn the animals’ own genes off.

The surprising results, published in the journal Cell Research from Chen-Yu Zhang’s group, led to speculation that genetic illness might one day be treated with medicinal food, but also to worry that genetically modified foods might in turn modify consumers in unanticipated ways.

Now, though, a research team at Johns Hopkins University in the United States reports that Zhang’s results were likely a false positive that resulted from the technique his group used.

[misterhighwasted]

2. This will not make Monsanto & its GMO investors too happy. Well at least they still have America!

Takers

[bemildred]

5. Good. nt

[Sheepshank]

6. I'd bet they don't feed their military melamine either.....

...just the rest of the civilian population and the countries they export foods to.


Frankly, I have little faith in the Chinese and their noble causes when it comes to human rights and treating people with respect.

[AceAcme]

7. Yup - I also lack faith in the Chinese government and its food products, but...

...when I read that they are trying to protect their army from what they consider to be the dangers of GMO foods, my eyebrows rise. They may be exporting crap -- but they clearly don't want to import crap that might cause degeneration in their soldiers.

[Sheepshank]

21. you are making a lot of assumptions here

assumptions with no basis in facts. However, you are permitted your opinion, just as I am permitted to disagree with it. That the Chinese has the welfare of humans/soldiers as the basis of this decision cannot be proven a truism. Their particularly nasty habit human rights violations is documented over a very long history. They very well could be using the soldiers as a test group...nothing more nothing less.

[AceAcme]

25. That would be pretty dumb strategery -- worthy of George W. Bush

I reckon I'm on solid ground making an assumption that China wants to keep it's army healthy and capable of defending their national borders (or to attack others). So by all means disagree with my assumption and conclusions. But i still bet on China wanting a healthy army.

And I still bet that most people -- around the world -- would avoid GMOs if they had basic knowledge about what is in the food they are buying and consuming But, of course, Big Ag, Big Chem, Big Drug, and Big GMO are all working overtime to make sure most human beings remain in ignorance about this.

America needs and wants the kind of protection the Chinese army is getting.

[mathematic]

22. The Chinese didn't ban GMOs for its soldiers

The link in the story in the OP is a 404. This story indicates that the notice was taken down shortly after it was posted.

It seems like somebody at the Guangzhou Military Command Joint Logistics Department and the Provincial Military Grain & Food Oil Supply Center spoke out of turn.

ETA: Clarifying that it is not the link in the OP that is the 404 but the link in the story the OP refers to that is the 404.

[AceAcme]

26. The OP link still works

Perhaps there will be more clarification about the story coming out on this story. But for now the link is working.

[Sheepshank]

27. Clarification is good

since you seem to be running amok with assumptions.

[AceAcme]

29. Having had GMO surreptitiously slipped into the mainstream food supply, one tends...

...to be highly suspicious. I don't want to eat GMO, nor do I wish to serve it to my family. I'd like to know where it is so I can avoid it. I feel profoundly uncomfortable that this stuff is being foisted on me and my family without us having information. We are unable to make a choice. To me, that's the antithesis of democracy. I call it Food Fascism. You are welcome to remain in the dark about whether your food has GMOs or not. That's your free will choice, and I respect that. But I reserve the right to "run amok" when I see Food Fascists on the march denying me and my family the right to make a free will choice.

[mathematic]

28. Sorry, the link in the story in the OP

The story attempts to link to the original notice but it's a 404, since it was taken down.

[AceAcme]

32. Some clarification: "minitrue" - LOL.

This is a confusing mess. Here are two stories that add smidgens of clarification. Love the 1984esque term, "mini true."

Since the claims that China's Army has banned GMOs is now so widespread on the Net, I would expect that at some point soon there will be definitive clarification forthcoming.

Minitrue: Wei Pengyuan, Army GMO Ban, QVOD Porn (may 15, 2014)

The following censorship instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.

Do not hype the investigation into deputy director of the National Energy Administration’s coal division Wei Pengyuan.

Delete Xiangyang City Grain Bureau’s announcement of a ban on GMO grain and food oil products from regional army provisions.

Please strengthen management of news and commentary about the investigation and handling of Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co., Ltd for spreading obscene and pornographic material. Commentary should only be in support of the investigation and penalty; negative commentary should be promptly deleted.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2014/05/minitrue-wei-pengyuan-army-gmo-ban-qvod-porn/

-----------

CLAIMS THAT U.S. SOYBEANS CAUSE INFERTILITY STOKE CHINA'S GMO BATTLE

(Wall Street Journal - China edition)

"...The military men’s positions underscore how closely GMO food is identified as a tool of Western – particularly U.S. – strategic policy, regardless of whether there’s enough evidence to support the association. The broader public sentiment in China, mainly hinged on health factors, also runs against the notion of allowing GMO food for human consumption..."

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/05/14/claims-that-u-s-soybeans-cause-infertility-stoke-chinas-gmo-battle/

[AceAcme]

33. In a relevant development: Two Oregon counties ban GMOs

According to a Reuters story published in the Chicago Tribune, two Oregon counties have just voted to protect their citizenry by banning GMO cultivation within their boundaries.



http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80263934/