Energy drinks for everyday use?

stevetroyer

Sounds like you are trolling. But I will answer your query.

I have adressed some of the issues with nerdag in a previous post. See those for links to support my claims.
Nerdag has not given any replies to those issues brought out by scientific studies, especially on the issue of HFCS and the links to obesity. Just HIS opinion. No scientific evidence. Just his opinion. He says he knows. Yes he does. Sure.

Just because he is a doctor does not make him and authority on nutrition. He even stated that he is not. He definately does not hold a phd in nutrition. He seems like a nice guy and he is very opinionated as am I.

I had doctors that almost killed me with their chemicals. They thought they were helping me with arthritis and put me on prescriptions that were destrying my liver and were giving me heart problems and many other issues..

I have decided to learn about nutrition because it was the only thing that made sense to me. I found doctors that helped me get over being overweight, gout, arthritis, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and other health issues by using good nutrition.

Here is some info:

winkyb

( QUOTE )

I am not here to sell anyone anything. I don't care if you get this stuff or not. I just want to let people know if they have health issues, if they want to excel in the fantastic sport of cycling, then this could be the answer for them. It was for me. I now live to bike. I could not before and now I can.


Chocolate milk is not the answer to recovery and good health which by the way any doctor will tell you to avoid if you are diabetic. Contains too much HFCS or other sugars.




[/QUOTE]I don`t know about all the other stuff but I do know that a lot of whole milk can cause you trouble. I have my own regiment that I do but if I told you you would laugh your ass off but it works for me. I am and old fart 62 soon to be 63 and you just have to look over me.but I am peddling a bike that is around 57 Lbs with all my gear thirty miles in less than 2 1/2 hours with rest stops. I say what ever works for you do it.
Wink

Bro Deal

I don't have diabetes and the chocolate powder I use in skim milk does not contain HFCS. Even if it did, the nonsense about HFCS falls into the same category as the nonsense about aspartame: a bunch of FUD without scientific backing.

For a guy who is not here to sell anything, you certainly are defensive.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

j.r.hawkins

Agreed, it does not. However, it does give a greater degree of credibility - that you presently lack.

One drop does not a rainstorm make. One MBBS or PhD's opinion does not the truth make either. It is however a clue, and a reason to listen to what they say before making up one's OWN mind on the balance of publicly available information.

I use chocolate milk myself and find it helps. Except for this morning, when for the first time ever I bought a choc milk from the 7-11, I mix my own from skim milk and cocoa powder. While pro sport teams might not use it, it IS recommended by the likes of Joe Friel as a low-cost substitute for the much-hyped commercial preparations.

I can think of a few reasons why pro sport teams might use a certain product. For example, the local national rugby league (football) team changed from brand X to BSc products because they were able to negotiate a better sponsorship deal with BSc.

nerdag's responses to your posts seem to me to be the more balanced and well-reasoned. You, by comparison, come across as a bit of a ranter pushing a barrow.

I really have no idea whether your claims are ultimately true or not. You could be right. However, looking at the overall tone and quality of your posts it looks like other things may be driving you besides expertise and a dispassionate concern for truth.

If you choose to ignore this feedback or take it on board, it makes no difference to me. I'm just holding up a mirror. What you do with what it shows is up to you.

I will lose no sleep over it and invest no more time in it.

mitosis

I'm not sure where to start with your post but probably with your first comment that there are better foods than milk to top up your glycogen levels. But its about the only part of your post that is correct.

Most hormones given to animals are broken down in the liver (as are antibiotics). Amounts appearing in milk are minimal. Antibiotics given routinely to ruminants affect their ability to break down their food in the rumen (which utilises microbes for digestion of food). Whether an anitbiotic works or not does not effect its rate of breakdown.

You don't get any flora from cows milk. It is a sterile substance when it leaves the cow. Any microbes in it appear there during collection and processing. Therefore microbes present in or on the cow can have no effect on the person drinking its milk.

Your are partly correct when you say that there are resident flora in and on us that help protect us from harmful microbes but you have greatly exaggerated their significance - and nothing about milk will change any of their populations.

Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are not absorbed whole (except globular protein in newborn infants) but broken down into amino acids, aborbed then reassembled by cells in the body. Enzymes in the diet have no direct impact on enzymes produced by or available to the body.

The main reason why milk is not a good enery drink is because of the fat content. 500mL of whole milk contains nearly 1/2 the fat needs for an adult female and about 1/3 for an adult male.

And the claim about mucus. Old wives tale.

If you are seriously studying nutrition you have a long way to go.

stevetroyer

So says you
And your credentials are?

Read this:
Here are some interesting facts about milk. Medically proven and research-supported: Much of this research and facts can be located at notmilk.com

Milk contains 59 hormones and Of those 59 hormones one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical in cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a "fuel cell" for any cancer... (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers).

IGF-1 is a normal part of ALL milk... the newborn is SUPPOSED to grow quickly! What makes the 50% of obese American consumers think they need MORE growth? Consumers don't think anything about it because they do not have a clue to the problem... nor do most of our doctors.

80% of the protein in milk is casein. Casein is a powerful binder... a
polymer used to make plastics... and a glue that is better used to make
sturdy furniture or hold beer bottle labels in place. It is in
thousands of processed foods as a binder... as "something" caseinate.

Casein is a powerful allergen... a histamine that creates lots of
mucus. The only medicine in Olympic athlete Flo-Jo's body was Benedryl, a power antihistamine she took to combat her last meal... pizza.

Cow's milk is allowed to have feces in it. This is a major source for bacteria. Milk is typically pasteurized more than once before it gets to your table... each time for only 15 seconds at 162 degrees Fahrenheit.
To sanitize water one is told to boil it (212 degrees F) for several minutes. That is a tremendous disparity, isn't it!

PUS:
ONE cubic centimeter (cc) of commercial cow's milk is allowed to have up to 750,000 somatic cells (common name is "PUS") and 20,000 live bacteria... before it is kept off the market.
That amounts to a whopping 20 million live squiggly bacteria and up to 750 MILLION pus cells per liter (bit more than a quart).

LEUKEMIA
According to Hoards Dairyman (Volume 147, number 4)... 89% of America's dairy herds have the leukemia virus

"Milk is a very strong pollutant: it is about 400 times more polluting than untreated sewage. To put it another way, 1,000 gallons of milk has the same polluting potential as the untreated sewage from a town of 7,000 people." Morlais Owen. Chief Scientist for Welsh Water. North Wales Weekly News. 24.3.88.

So says Dr. John McDougle:
If a patient bargained with me, "I'll give up only one of the first two food groups "meat or milk" - hopes of getting well," my recommendation for almost all common health problems in Western society would be, "You're likely to get the most benefits if you give up the dairy products."

I am sure you are an expert in veterinary medicine and hold a doctorate or PHD.
go here to say you are wrong on hormones:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031101/food.asp
or here: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette...7/11-dairy.html

read this about antibiotics in cows milk. If there are none due to the liver, then why are they checking for antibiotics?

Consumers Union says, "Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, praised a decision today by the U.N.'s main food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, not to endorse the safety of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a genetically-engineered hormone produced by Monsanto that is designed to increase dairy cows' milk output." [From "U.S. and Europe Agree to Disagree on Safety of Dairy Hormone", June 30, 1999].

Consumer Reports ® says, "A greater concern than bGH in milk may be a related hormone known as insulinlike growth factor I, or IGF-I. The IGF-I found in cows is chemically identical to that found in humans. The hormone, produced as a chemical 'messenger' in response to bGH, is the substance through which bGH actually exerts many of its effects on the body's cells. Levels of IGF-I rise in the milk of cows treated with bGH. The degree of the change is unclear; some studies have shown an increase as low as 25 percent, others more than a three-fold increase. It's not clear whether IGF-I in milk can survive the human digestive tract or, if it does, what the physiological effects might be. Both issues need further study.

Use of the hormone bGH may also affect human health indirectly by affecting the health of the cows that receive it. Several studies show an increased incidence of mastitis (inflammation of the udder), reproductive failure, and other health problems in cows given bGH. Farmers are more likely to give antibiotics to cows with mastitis or other infections, and those drugs, in turn, could make their way into milk when used improperly.

In that way, widespread use of bGH could exacerbate a problem that has already caused public concern: the presence of animal drug residues in the milk supply. Over the last few years, several organizations have tested. American milk and reported finding traces of antibiotics in a significant number of samples, nearly 40 percent in one case. Drug residues in milk could theoretically lead to human health problems, including allergic reactions in sensitized individuals and, for some drugs, a hypothetical cancer risk.

At present, drug residues in milk do not appear to present a significant health risk, judging by tests of milk that CU conducted last year. We analyzed 160 samples of milk bought in New York and Wisconsin. In a preliminary screening test - the same test that had formed the basis of earlier reports from other groups - 20 percent came up positive for some antibiotic contamination. But more-precise tests are needed to confirm the presence of antibiotics, measure the amounts, and identify the individual drugs. Our confirmation tests conclusively verified residues in only about 2 percent of the samples. And the few antibiotic residues we found were all within limits considered "safe" by the FDA.

That basically reassuring result is tempered, however, by two offsetting concerns.

First, there is now no adequate Government program to ensure that antibiotic levels in milk will not rise as a result of bGH use, changes in veterinary practices, or other factors. The FDA's new National Drug Residue Milk Monitoring Program, designed to search for antibiotics in milk, is checking only 250 samples of milk a year, far too few to represent the varied national milk supply adequately. In addition, the program tests milk for only a dozen or so antibiotics, a modest fraction of those now in use. A second, more fundamental problem is that for many antibiotics - including some picked up by our screening tests - there are no reliable ways to verify residues at the levels likely to occur in the milk supply. The law requires drug makers to develop analytical methods for detecting residues before a drug can be approved for use in animals. The FDA has not enforced that requirement stringently in the past, and the agency is now struggling, with limited resources, to come up with "state of the art" tests for the most important antibiotics in milk."

stevetroyer

ANd I will keep it short this time.

I am learning all the time NERDGAG. At least I will admit to not knowing everything, unlike you. Your statement about chocolate milk filled with HFCS is beyond me. Every other doctor I have talked to on this subject has disagreed with you. I must say that you are giving me an education as to why we should never trust a doctor. Always get a second opinion.

As far as confidence in my knowledge...I am always open to new ideas. The idea that Enzymes are far more important than almost anything else for the body to function is REVOLUTIONARY. Supplementing enzymes is REVOLTUIONARY.

I read copius amounts of information because I want to learn. I learned how to get myself healthy. Not from the doctors I had but doctors who I found. They saved my life. I learned that chelated minerals were the only minerals I should be taking. I learned that stabilized enzymes are the only thing I should be taking. I learned that absorbtion is far more important than consumption with supplements. I learned that SOD is the most important antioxidant. My SOD levels were low. I learned that you cannot supplement SOD with SOD but can make the body produce SOD with pre cursors. I bet you did not even know about SOD.

I learned that the food we are eating is not the food of 20 or 30 years ago. MOdern food is not as nutritious as before due to mineral depeletion, GMO's and all the chemicals. I learned that obesity will in 20 years affect 75% of the population. I see obese people on bicycles all the time trying to lose weight without much progress.

And there you sit saying all is OK and HFCS is not such a big problem. Milk is good for You.

DarnIT! I am passionate about what I found because it helped me. I don't give a rats behind if you take this message and check into it. I don't care what you or anyone else do. I just want to let people know that what is known now is not neccesarily right when it comes to nutrition. I found out because I had to.

As far as stupid........I will quote Forrest Gumpp..."stupid is as stupid does." and telling people that chocolate milk is a healthy drink is as stupid as it gets.

With all best wishes.......

nerdag

Where do I even start with the misinformation in your posts? The concept of an enzymes is not "revolutionary" they've been around since metabolism has been churning over life. That you claim to be the "messenger" for this sudden awakening is somewhat akin to saying that the concept of a round wheel is revolutionary for 2007.

As mitosis put more explicitly and succintly than I have, any "revolutionary" enzyme that you claim to have in your drink would be useless by the time it gets absorbed across your GIT, having been broken down into its amino acid components. Clearly, you have no idea what you're on about.

You're a fraud, SteveTroyer. You've done nothing but spread lies under the guise of "sharing the knowledge", all to sell your pathetic "energy" drink that will solve all of humankind's problems, like stopping cancer, diabetes, obesity, and best of all, make us all fantastic cyclists, by simply sharing your "secret'. All you ask is that people contact you for about "the Energy Drink", so you can give them the hard sell.

Grandiose, don't you think?

Your self-serving and misinformed ramblings deserve no further attention from anybody on this forum.

This is the last thing I will have to say, SteveTroyer. If anybody believes the sales driven lies that are coming from your keystrokes, then they deserve to lose their money on your "revolutionary" energy drink.

n

stevetroyer

I did not come here to make enemies. I only wanted to tell people what I found. You seem to be very acerbic and you seem to have a temper. Your posting was about chocolate milk. I only wanted to point out that chocolate milk is not a very good thing for many people. If you are a doctor,,,which I doubt....then you would know that many people are lactos intollerant. And many people are diabetic. They cannot handle chocolate milk. Too much sugar. You should know that.

Nerdag.....If enzymes are not revolutionary in the nutritional field, then why are not every vitamin manufacturer using them? Why is it that for all of the several nutritionists I have talked to know very little about them. Dito with doctors. Why does not centrums, one a day, and all the other vitamins available over the counter not have enzymes? You of course will not have an answer for that as you have never answered anything I have brought up except to attack me with inanities..

The thought of enzymes combined with minerals, antioxidants, flora and vitamins in the correct ballance and synergy is revolutionary. The delivery system is revolutionary. And the money back guarnatee is unheard of with any other company. No one ever went to major league baseball and told them about enzymes and their importance. NO one. Until now. 25 FREAKING PHD's worked on the products that has helped me. It was the only ones to do that succesfully.

You say you are a doctor.......
You never responded to my question. How many professional sports teams are you talking to on a regualr basis? How many proefessional athletes are knocking on your door wanting to know what you know? What product other than the wonder drug, chocolate milk, have you discovered or developed to help people?


Yes I am opinionated. Yes I can be annoying because I believe in this technology. I believe that whole - whole food vitamins are the only vitamins people should be taking. All the others are killing people every day. I believe that stabilized Enzymes are the key to good health and that chelated minerals are the only minerals that are usable by the body and the only ones we should be using. I know that what I have found can help people.

I have seen nothing from you to indicate a passion. A passion to learn, a passion to educate people on what is really good for them...a passion to help others...all I see is ...drink chocolate milk.

I will smoke you on the bike trails and on the road. I guarantee it.

Klodifan

Pro-dairy, anti-diary...

HFCS is evil, no, it's not...

the best anyone can do is eat all natural or as minimally processed food as possible. one can't blame HFCS for everything. Change in lifestyle has a lot to do with why people are so fat these days. people move less, which means they weigh more. plain and simple.

There is no contest, however, when given the choice between freshly squeezed juice and something like gatorade. And eating a high qualiy diet will prevent your body from crashing to such extremes as to crave such a supplement as a prepackaged energy drink. That being said, being an extremist will not win over the vast majority that need to be won over to implement change.

My advice would be to lead by example. I never get sick b/c I respect my body. I rarely eat anything that comes in a box or a jar and only shop the perimeter of the markets and I NEVER take drugs, OTC like a simple aspirin or otherwise. But, I do break the rules on a few occasions, and you know what, it hasn't and it won't kill me knowing that I injested some HFCS. Mind, you this may happen like twice a year, but still, Im not going to get all rabid on people because of it. Drop the hidden agenda and just try to focus on getting people to eat better and exercise more and the markets and the profitability of HFCS will take care of itself. does that make sense? its past my bedtime now. goodnight.

stevetroyer

I agree with you. And I have to admit I was wrong about chocolate milk in some respects. I have found information that chocolate milk was found to be somewhat beneficial for a recovery drink. Not sure who the scientists were....could be they worked for the dairy industry. Who knows. Everyone has an agenda.
I did not say that HFCS is responsible for every malady that humans suffer. HFCS is a danger that must be looked in to if you want to stay healthy and keep the weight off.

I was trying to lose weight for almost 15 years and could not. I am 5'7" and weighing 210 lbs was too much. I tried every diet. I tried every exercise machine and I tried biking. Biking was the only thing that I was able to at least keep the weight from gaining. I fell in love with the sport all over again.

I am passionate about biking and about health. I will admit when I am wrong. And I was partially wrong here.
Go to: http://nencycling.org/chocolate_milk_makes_you _faster

Hey, if it works for you, then fine.

Seems someone wanted to know if it helps with recovery. They found out it did.
I did learn much from this discussion. It has helped me become more passionate about what I believe is an answer to many for weight loss and better cycling.

The drink I use is not a recovery drink but a drink that I use before I ride. I found it gave me energy like I had when I was in my 20's. It also allowed me to lose weight which with all the other products out there did not do for me. I had asked many other people who were riding bikes why they do. The number one reason was to lose weight or to keep the weight off. I found the enzymes in the drink I take has increased my metabolism. I am able to ride faster and farther than I ever dreamed. The food I eat is able to be used as energy more efficiently.

In that regard, chocolate milk is not the answer. And as I have pointed out, much of what is in chocolate milk is not as healthy as it could be. There are differing opinions about the use of milk. I cannot drink it. It gives me an upset stomach. My doctor told me to get off milk. It made a difference. I know of many other people who have gotten off milk and allowed for weight loss and better health.

Diabetics should not drink it because most of the chocolate milk out has HFCS in it. HFCS is a danger. It is in everything. Since it has been itroduced in the 1970's, obesity has exploded. With the average consumption of over 60 lbs per person per year, it has to be considered as a possible and a probable cause for obesity.

Nerdag, you were right. And so was I. And we were both wrong.

stevetroyer

http://nencycling.org/chocolate_milk_makes_you_faster
sorry for the bad link.
And for those who think HFCS is not dangerous.....see the CNN news program aired Saturday evening 9/22/07 called America's Killer Diet. Here is the link.....
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/siu/shows/fed.up/

That show will air again this evening 9/23/07 Sunday at 8 pm EST.

They agree with much of what I have said in past posts. I guess I was right.

mitosis

I could claim any credentials on this forum but lets say I have a good knowledge of nutrition.

YOu can check any of my statements in any basic nutrition text - if you want to. But reading some more of your posts it seems like you enjoy restating outlandish claims.

I could pull apart your reply to my post, starting with your 59 hormones (are you claiming they are all injected by humans) then closely followed by your claim that insulin is a growth hormone (if there were significant amounts of insulin in milk they would have killed a few less pigs before they developed a way to make it from engineered E. coli) but so can you if you open your eyes to the SCIENCE of nutrition.

Can I suggest before you believe the claims you have quoted you need to look at the scientific standing of the person making them. I was only trying to help you - you did suggest you were studying nutrition.

stevetroyer

Thanks for the reply. No I do not claim anything about hormones other than bovine growth hormone which was introduced by Monsanto has been used extensively and have not been fully tested.

Here is some information on that......
The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook
Dr. Samuel Epstein rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), is a genetically non-engineered (GE) potent variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Manufactured by Monsanto, it is sold to dairy farmers under the trade name POSILAC. Injection of this GE hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by about 10%. Monsanto and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) insist that rBGH milk is indistinguishable from natural milk and safe to cows and consumers. However:

. * rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation. * rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis. * rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects. * rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk. * rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers. * rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population. . The health hazards to animals, the detriment to small farms, the cover-up in Monsanto, all the negatives attached to rGBH are in no way balanced by any benefits of increased milk production in view of the national surplus.

Seven years ago, Feb. 4, 1994, despite nationwide protests by consumer groups, Monsanto and the FDA forced onto the US market the world's first GE animal drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH, sometimes known as rBST). BGH is a powerful GE drug produced by Monsanto which, injected into dairy cows, forces them to produce 15%-25% more milk, in the process seriously damaging their health and reproductive capacity.

Despite warnings from scientists, such as Dr. Michael Hansen from the Consumers Union and Dr. Samuel Epstein from the Cancer Prevention Coalition, that milk from rBGH injected cows contains substantially higher amounts of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1, and despite evidence that rBGH milk contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and antibiotics, the FDA gave the hormone its seal of approval, with no real pre-market safety testing required.

Moreover, the FDA ruled, in a decision marred by rampant conflict of interest (several key FDA decision makers, including Michael Taylor, previously worked for Monsanto), that rBGH-derived products did not have to be labeled, despite polls showing that 90% of American consumers wanted labeling -- mainly so they could avoid buying rBGH-tainted products.

All of the major criticisms leveled against rBGH have turned out to be true. Since 1994, every industrialized country in the world, except for the US, has banned the drug.

In 1998, Canadian government scientists revealed that Monsanto's own data on feeding rBGH to rats, carefully concealed by the company and the FDA, indicated possible cancer dangers to humans.

Since rBGH was approved, approximately 40,000 small and medium-sized US dairy farmers, 1/3 of the total in the country, have gone out of business, concentrating milk production in the hands of industrial-sized dairies, most of whom are injecting their cows with this cruel and dangerous drug.

In a 1998 survey by Family Farm Defenders, it was found that mortality rates for cows on factory dairy farms in Wisconsin, those injecting their herds with rBGH, were running at 40% per year. In other words, after two and a half years of rBGH injections most of these drugged and supercharged cows were dead.

Typically, dairy cows live for 15-20 years.

Alarmed and revolted by rBGH, consumers have turned in droves to organic milk and dairy products or to brands labeled as rBGH-free. Nonetheless, use of the drug has continued to increase in the US (and in nations like Brazil and Mexico) especially in large dairy herds, so that currently 15% of America's 10 million lactating dairy cows are being injected with rBGH.

Compounding the problem of rBGH contamination, most of the nation's 1500 dairy companies are allowing the co-mingling of rBGH and non-rBGH milk, thereby contaminating 80-90% of the nation's milk and dairy supply (including all of the major infant formula brands). For a list of organic and rBGH-free dairies in the US consult the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) website.

The major reason that rBGH is still on the market is that it is not labeled. Supermarket dairy managers, following guidelines circulated by the rBGH and biotech lobby, routinely lie to consumers, telling them either that rBGH is not in their products, or that there's no way to tell, and reassuring them that the FDA has certified that rBGH is safe.

Of course, every survey conducted since 1994 shows that if consumers were given a choice, they would boycott rBGH-tainted products.

Responding to the global controversy surrounding the drug, Monsanto put BGH for sale in 1998, but there were no takers. Transnational PR firms working with the biotech industry have categorized Monsanto's handling of the rBGH controversy as a "public relations disaster."

Starbucks has been a target as 3/4 of the 32 million gallons of milk it buys every year in the US are coming from dairies that allow cows to be injected with rBGH.

Once Starbucks' 15 million customers learn that most of the latte or cappuccino drinks they're paying top dollar for (3/4 of the volume of these drinks are milk) contain an extra dose of pus, antibiotics, and growth hormones and that Fair Trade and organic coffee constitute less than one percent of company sales, they may decide to take their business elsewhere.

Total annual sales for the company are approximately $2.5 billion.

The worst nightmare of Monsanto and the biotech industry is starting to materialize: a mass-based consumer and environmental marketplace pressure campaign in the heartland of GE foods-North America.

A number of major US food companies are already responding to public pressure and starting to sweep GE foods off their products lists and their grocery shelves: Gerber (baby food), Heinz (baby food), Frito-Lay (at least for their corn), Whole Foods, Wild Oats, Trader Joe's, and even McDonald's (at least for their French fries).


I guess these companies have decided that what I have been quoting is rational and relevant.

I am learning and am grateful that you have pointed out that I should look at qualifictions before I decide which information is real and which is just propoganda or opinion..

Thank You.