AudioCircle
Community => Non-audio hobbies and interests => Health and Fitness => Topic started by: werd on 1 Jun 2016, 01:09 am
-
What do people think on this? Is everyone ok with these genetically modified grown stuff? Frankenfoods born out of Monsanto lab. Do we trust Monsanto and their GMO'd herbicided tolerant stuff? Remember they brought us stuff like PCBs and bio weaponry like Agent Orange. Sold it too knowing full well it was evil.
-
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/0883a75f2946b09e364ac5eedeab3316/tumblr_ndynldZREf1s04h2ho1_1280.jpg)
-
I think the whole GMO thing is blown out of proportion with regard to food safety. However, what I REALLY don't like about GMO crops is what they're doing to the ecosystem....like the evolution of pesticide resistant weeds, messing up the soil quality, and the massive shortage of bees. Those are the BIG issues, particularly the bee shortage. It's awful.
-
I think the whole GMO thing is blown out of proportion with regard to food safety. However, what I REALLY don't like about GMO crops is what they're doing to the ecosystem....like the evolution of pesticide resistant weeds, messing up the soil quality, and the massive shortage of bees. Those are the BIG issues, particularly the bee shortage. It's awful.
I agree with you on that and it also seems to go completely unnoticed. There appears to be a lot of memes like JerryMs that miss the ball on that. It's is like they want you to look at the technical data regarding food and ignore the farming malfunctions. It' doesn't have to be GMOs either the topic is for both but GMOs are typical huge corporate farms. Well that and they are supplied by that freak-of-nature Monsanto.
-
Have you asked your Doctor about his/her thoughts, werd?
What do you consider 'genetically modified'?
Have you heard of Norman Borlaug?
The memes exist for a reason, my friend.
-
GMO's are really, really bad if you are rich enough to buy some organic like me, but 100% organic would bankrupt me. Albertson's just had corn on sale - 8 for $1.00 and it is pretty good, every ear was perfect.
As just one example: Say what you will about sugar but a lot of people consume pounds of it. A recent interview with beet farmer Andrew Beyer, from Kent, Minn. had this quote:
"Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds.
He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch)
So you can ponder what the "witches brew" of weedkillers do to Mother Earth and the general population's health and your health insurance even if you eat zero sugar.
-
Have you asked your Doctor about his/her thoughts, werd?
What do you consider 'genetically modified'?
Have you heard of Norman Borlaug?
The memes exist for a reason, my friend.
Genetically Modified in a lab. The memes work but unfortunately are too laser and do not address the problem as it exists practically. They do not address what Rdavidson said and they do not address the patent issues. I typically agree with all the memes btw.
I have heard of N. Borlaug but he has been off my radar for a long time and not since I haven taken an interest to GMOs.
-
Currently german big guy Bayer/Basf is taking Monsanto, not a good thing too.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/05/12/report-bayer-exploring-monsanto-acquisition/84273680/
-
Currently german big guy Bayer/Basf is taking Monsanto, not a good thing too.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/05/12/report-bayer-exploring-monsanto-acquisition/84273680/
Explains why all the negativity and illegality with GMOs in Europe. They are being forced to merge with Bayer to gain acceptance in Europe IMO. It looks likes the negativity and bans are a lobby tool by Bayer. This brings up another issue with GMOs and Labeling. If there is going to be this kind of politics played with our food then we almost certainly need the labelling. The labelling will get things out in the open where it needs to be.
-
What would you like to see on the label? That you're not going to die of starvation because this food was grown with a genetic change? That tons of herbicide was not needed due to a genetic change? That vitamins known to be deficient in your country exist in this food, due to a genetic change?
Do you ever eat a hot dog? Good grief, try to keep things in perspective.
-
What would you like to see on the label? That you're not going to die of starvation because this food was grown with a genetic change? That tons of herbicide was not needed due to a genetic change? That vitamins known to be deficient in your country exist in this food, due to a genetic change?
Do you ever eat a hot dog? Good grief, try to keep things in perspective.
I want to see the country of origin, who the seed provider is, who the farmer is. I do not understand this anti labelling. The more info the better. I typically see anti labelling by the Monsanto shills. Labelling is absolutely proper and inline with modern day technology that makes this very easy. They just do not want to label it because of marketing. The reason why info like this is being withheld; not because of any scientific logic but pure marketing. That is B.S and not a reason to not label.
-
What would you like to see on the label? That you're not going to die of starvation because this food was grown with a genetic change? That tons of herbicide was not needed due to a genetic change? That vitamins known to be deficient in your country exist in this food, due to a genetic change?
Do you ever eat a hot dog? Good grief, try to keep things in perspective.
double post delete please
-
If GMO's are a concern then here is a short list of what to avoid:
What percentage of U.S. crops are GMO? http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UfFqm9LCaM4 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UfFqm9LCaM4)
Corn: 92% - Sweet Corn, Field Corn (high fructose corn syrup, corn ethanol, etc.) No more ketchup on your fries. No driving either unless it's an electric car.
Soybeans: 94% - soybean oil—which is widely used for processed foods and in restaurant chains. In fact, soybean oil accounts for 61% of Americans' vegetable-oil consumption.
It's also often used to make an emulsifier called soy lecithin, which is present in a lot of processed foods, including dark chocolate bars and candy.
Cotton: 94% - cottonseed oil, which is used for frying in restaurants and in packaged foods like potato chips. Underwear, socks, t-shirts, and other comfy clothes.
You can identify a non-gmo person by their 100% polyester leisure suit in commando mode.
Canola: 90%
Sugar Beets: 95%
Squash
Papaya
Alfalfa - hay for cattle
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/gmo/what-percentage-of-u.s.-crops-are-gmo (http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/gmo/what-percentage-of-u.s.-crops-are-gmo)
http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/ (http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/)
-
GMO's are really, really bad if you are rich enough to buy some organic like me, but 100% organic would bankrupt me. Albertson's just had corn on sale - 8 for $1.00 and it is pretty good, every ear was perfect.
As just one example: Say what you will about sugar but a lot of people consume pounds of it. A recent interview with beet farmer Andrew Beyer, from Kent, Minn. had this quote:
"Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds.
He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch)
So you can ponder what the "witches brew" of weedkillers do to Mother Earth and the general population's health and your health insurance even if you eat zero sugar.
Actually the use of Glysophate has gone up steadily and heavily. The use of herbicides have increased and it is incorrect to say it has gone down that is false. This debate between Monsanto and their counterparts gives an excellent understanding of the problem. Monsanto acted like a Corp would act. basically saying yah but we are corporation what do you expect. The opposing view or anti GMO was largely based on farming and herbicide use out of control.
I hope this thread works. I am really interested in this because it effects basically all our food.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1161-genetically-modify-food
-
...I hope this thread works. I am really interested in this because it effects basically all our food. ...
Seriously then, go ask your doctor. Go to the nearest college and ask a scientist. Ask several.
-
If GMO's are a concern then here is a short list of what to avoid:
What percentage of U.S. crops are GMO? http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UfFqm9LCaM4 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UfFqm9LCaM4)
Corn: 92% - Sweet Corn, Field Corn (high fructose corn syrup, corn ethanol, etc.) No more ketchup on your fries. No driving either unless it's an electric car.
Soybeans: 94% - soybean oil—which is widely used for processed foods and in restaurant chains. In fact, soybean oil accounts for 61% of Americans' vegetable-oil consumption.
It's also often used to make an emulsifier called soy lecithin, which is present in a lot of processed foods, including dark chocolate bars and candy.
Cotton: 94% - cottonseed oil, which is used for frying in restaurants and in packaged foods like potato chips. Underwear, socks, t-shirts, and other comfy clothes.
You can identify a non-gmo person by their 100% polyester leisure suit in commando mode.
Canola: 90%
Sugar Beets: 95%
Squash
Papaya
Alfalfa - hay for cattle
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/gmo/what-percentage-of-u.s.-crops-are-gmo (http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/gmo/what-percentage-of-u.s.-crops-are-gmo)
http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/ (http://time.com/3840073/gmo-food-charts/)
We got GMO salmon now and apples. It is headed to all types will be GMO
-
Seriously then, go ask your doctor. Go to the nearest college and ask a scientist. Ask several.
:lol:
they are going to give me an opinion based on their knowledge of medicine. They are not going to give an agriculture view or an in depth research view. That is silly. I know GMOs are to date healthy.
Btw if you look at that link the anti GMO are scientist and by no means flakes. It depends on who you talk to and what they want you to know. They do not claim GMOs cause cancer but they claim that herbicide use is so out of control that long term studies of herbicides are not complete and remain dangerous due to the environmental impact. It's not about science denial of chemicals. That is click bate bullshit.
-
GMO's, currently, are almost entirely safe. The danger comes not from the unknown, but the known, with them. The way the problem works isn't when you take a protein from one thing to another, but when you choose the wrong protein to splice.
Let's say you add a protein from peanuts to potatoes because it prevent the rot that can occur and wipe out a potato crop. But what if that same protein is the one people with peanut allergies are affected by?!?!??! Now that's the concern. This can be done with proteins people are not "allergic" too but are very bad for them in less obvious ways. "Lectin" is a term you may want to look up. Monsanto literally chased the #1 expert on them out of the USA.
The worst thing about Monsanto isn't GMO. GMO's have the potential to be very positive and do AMAZING things for humans. The problem is Monsanto sue's the ever loving shit out of everyone. Anyone that isn't a Monsanto farmer lives in absolute fear of being sued into oblivion by them. They are trying to monopolize the USA. They don't even have to win in court, under stupid premises like a seed blew into the wind of a neighboring farmer, so they found "copywrited" DNA in the farm next door, when all they have to do is bankrupt the farmer by keeping them in court.
Monsanto isn't in Montana yet, the only reason why is the farmers don't trust them because they're fucking crooks. They are not opposed to them because of GMO's.
What should you eat?
Now that's a harder question to answer. It's very personalized. But in general the issue with most GMO products is they aren't nutrient dense. But eating organic isn't the only way to eat, there's plenty of non-organic products that are as high or higher quality than a "USDA" organic product. The "USDA" organic is a standard to punish small farmers in many ways, btw.
Can you eat organic? Yes you can. It's not that expensive, or more expensive, depending on what you buy, where, and how. If you're seeing it as being a lot more expensive you have strange habits. Those that eat very poorly and try to switch to eating poorly but organic will see a $ increase.
-
What I dont like in GMO is the seeds are now a private company proprierty, also it seems to do a unsafe change in the soil as mentioned and maybe bad to the consumer body, not to mention poisoning the food chain.
In my country there is no more organic wheat is all GMO with 500% more gluten, this is why many people are allergic to gluten today.
-
Monsanto first introduced GMOs back in the 90s, how the hell could anyone expect a safe product? Their history is weapons bio engineering and PCBs.. Fact. That is a fact, a sad one but true. What info were they handing out in the 90s before they had all this data we got now? What were they saying back then that it was safe. We know by their history anything they say is bullshit. How much of this new data is a convenience that seems to suit their business stance about cancers? I do not trust this as far as I can throw it.
Me not trusting it does not make the food unsafe but we know there is a lack of information around the overuse of herbicide. That is another fact. The notion that GMOs cause cancer is unlikely. The Monsanto shills seem to talk about that constantly because they appear to have studies discarding it. I can't see any other reason why but to create a decoy from the real problem of herbicide overuse which sits right in the pocket book of Monsanto. This company needs to fail
-
What I dont like in GMO is the seeds are now a private company proprierty, also it seems to do a unsafe change in the soil as mentioned and maybe bad to the consumer body, not to mention poisoning the food chain.
In my country there is no more organic wheat is all GMO with 500% more gluten, this is why many people are allergic to gluten today.
Are you in Brazil? Brazil has the highest use of herbicides. Also Wheat GMOs are not lab. Wheat lab GMOs were discontinued early because the Canadians could not market the wheat. Nobody wanted it because of Monsanto and it being GMO so they tossed it. Wheat is not lab GMO,
-
Wheat in the USA is still significantly increased gluten. Even if they wheat doesn't, they add it.
I don't believe a weapon maker is incapable of making quality food. Again, the worst thing by far is the suing, monopolizing, etc... They've affected a lot of markets they aren't even in. Farmers have a hard time using their own seeds, if they even can.
-
Wheat in the USA is still significantly increased gluten. Even if they wheat doesn't, they add it.
I don't believe a weapon maker is incapable of making quality food. Again, the worst thing by far is the suing, monopolizing, etc... They've affected a lot of markets they aren't even in. Farmers have a hard time using their own seeds, if they even can.
It is about their policy of misinformation and lies to keep their product in market. Agent Orange was in use till 1979 in the States. Agent orange is a herbicide.. :o :lol:
Roundup is a herbicide.
-
Wheat in the USA is still significantly increased gluten. Even if they wheat doesn't, they add it.
I don't believe a weapon maker is incapable of making quality food. Again, the worst thing by far is the suing, monopolizing, etc... They've affected a lot of markets they aren't even in. Farmers have a hard time using their own seeds, if they even can.
They are disgusting. Look at the Canadian Supreme Court - Perry vs Monsanto case. This is what I got from it.
They sell their technology. They immediately assume farmers in the area are collecting seeds from drift. They wait till next season and trespass and collect samples. Monsanto then decides if there is a large enough yield to prove a case. A case that should never have existed (in the first place) because the only way is by trespassing or gathering info illegally. How the hell do they know their tech is used?
It doesn't matter because they are scum Monsanto.
They sue the farmer for patent infringement. An infringement that never existed before lab GMOs. They sue the farmer because they have altered a couple of DNA proteins. They sue the farmer like the entire DNA genome of the plant is theirs.
Instead of showing damages in monetary that their tech provided higher yield and sueing for the difference. They sue like the entire profit of the yield is theirs. That is bullshit.
-
In my country they are suing various federations of farmers wanting to receive royaltes by the use of seeds(that were purchased), the value amount is big.
-
In my country they are suing various federations of farmers wanting to receive royaltes by the use of seeds(that were purchased), the value amount is big.
This is why it worries me they were a weapons Bio tech company in the past. Because the way they are wielding their patent technology is like a conquer and destroy tactic. They need big farms owned by corporations to sell their tech.They make the most money this way because they use Jump Starts and Seed coatings in their planting that really only becomes feasible with huge farming. They want farms in the 1000s of acres buying from them and not these under 2k size.
So they go on a conquer and destroy of sueing to bankrupt farmers they do not like Basically to get them out of the way.
-
Just want to say that I will not get into this type of discussion,
last time I did,
my topic : You are what you eat,
was sent to the waste bin.
However, I am not in favor of any GMO.
Guy 13
-
This is what concerns me. The problem isn't the GMOs Per se. The problem is with the over use of herbicides and pesticides. We see the same thing right now with global warming. Carbon gases are considered benign in itself. The problem with global warming is the continual onslaught of a general weak gas like C02. The reason it exists is because of the amount of tonnage in gas we are using. The planet can not keep up. We know that.
Is this possible in the ground with herbicide overuse? Is it unreasonable to think we maybe creating such a build up of generally non toxic herbicide to the point that it starts rotting out soil in a way that may not be apparent right now?. If you guys are not worried about this go look at the increase of herbicide in tonnage. Brazil being the worse at about 300k tons a year and it's increasing going up every year.
-
This is what concerns me. The problem isn't the GMOs Per se. The problem is with the over use of herbicides and pesticides...
The overuse of herbicides and pesticides is a concern. They can leach through the soil and reach fresh water aquifers or waterways that are typically a reliable source of potable water.
The good news, though, is that a company shares your concerns and has been investing billions of dollars in R&D to contribute food-bearing plants that never need, nor leach, either substance. That company's name is Monsanto.
Have fun,
Jerry
-
I would not say this much:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964
-
(http://img14.deviantart.net/ac89/i/2012/008/f/2/mary_go_round_by_darkjade21-d4lp1di.jpg)
-
I'm guessing why no one is on that Monsanto Merry-go-round because they are all dead.... :lol:
-
I'm guessing why no one is on that Monsanto Merry-go-round because they are all dead.... :lol:
You get the gist. 8)
-
64 countries labels GMO's, US should also.
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/
Wheat is toxic because it is sprayed with Round-up before harvest.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/
-
Yes, California (where I live) is leading the pack as it comes to labeling.
The label says "This food contains GMOs". It's my choice whether I select that product or not.
Inasmuch as I long for the day that local Farmer's Markets can solve world hunger, as FRM's post suggests, my cynical side finds it pretty fucking unlikely that will ever happen.
"Food", as we know it, is bigger than what's in our refrigerators.
7.4 billion people want to know 'what's for dinner?' Thus the merry-go-round.
Please, let me assure you that the vast majority of the world does not view Monsanto as evil for providing a solution.
When will you die from your exposure to GMOs? Glyphosate? When will you die from lack of food? When will you die from normal life expectancy?
Again, let's try to keep thing in perspective.
-
64 countries labels GMO's, US should also.
http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/
Wheat is toxic because it is sprayed with Round-up before harvest.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/real-reason-for-toxic-wheat-its-not-gluten/
although I agree with herbicide overuse I am pretty sure those ailments are not caused by roundup. IN saskatoon I am completely immersed in the agriculture community. None of that is apparent in any of the population. Round- up is listed as an irritant. Infact I am pretty sure they have all been debunked.
Having said that I still want labelling and this is why. We have seen a masssive campaign by big business to downsize government. Underfunding government agencies like the FDA and EPA is basically a form of derregulation. They turned these protections into a limp underfunded nuisance at best. There is also culture of "revolving door" appointments from government into jobs at Monsanto.
What does this mean? It means I cant rely on the government. I basically have to do it myself. It's to the point where I need to research the food and where it came from and what lab it was produced in because the gov can't. Labelling makes this easier to do right from the start. Like this is sad but this is what these fricken bastards want. They want no functioning government and they do not want labelling. Well they can go fuck themselves because they cant have both. Too bad they are getting labelling.
-
You're right, werd. Labeling is the answer. All you need to work out now is the language in which the label is written. :duh:
(https://kirschnerskorner.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/starving.jpg)
-
I am trying to work out this persistent attempt to align Monsanto with Norman Borlaug. For one thing Norman Borlaug never sued anybody. For another he didn't design herbicidal bio Weaponry for the purpose of destroying a nation with Agent Orange. Monsanto isn't about feeding shit. When are they going to start? They don't do wheat. What are they going to feed the hungry with some corn on the cob soaked in canola oil?
This is a pathetic attempt and obvious Monsanto shilling. Shilling if you are getting paid. Just plain patsy if not. Haha just boinking with ya.
But quit the starving child garbage.
-
Please, let me assure you that the vast majority of the world does not view Monsanto as evil for providing a solution.
Let me assure you they do. No one trusts them and they want them out.
-
I don't trust them because like many large corporation, their only concern
and goal is to make money, lots of it...
Because their share holders want a good return on their investment.
My God, I said I would not comment, but I just did,
sorry I could not resist.
I don't trust them and I don't like them and every and any products should have
an honest labelling.
Thats it !
Guy 13
-
In the 60 when I was a kid there was many orange and tangerine species in my country, then came Monsanto guys and said w/a english accent: we will do these fruits without seeds for you buy seeds from us, the local people laugh.
So in the 80s all fruits seeds were dead, If you plant the seeds nothing will born, nothing, the seeds are dead.
-
Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=facebookmercola_ranart&utm_campaign=20160601_dr-huber-gmo-foods
Glyphosate Found in Urine of 93 percent of Americans Tested
http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/29/urine-test-monsanto-glyphosate/
-
Do you drink wine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_h8bn24QA&google_comment_id=z13rudmh3nrdsprf022qsjhqcqybtvjyt04&google_view_type#gpluscomments
-
Do you drink wine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6_h8bn24QA&google_comment_id=z13rudmh3nrdsprf022qsjhqcqybtvjyt04&google_view_type#gpluscomments
Thanks Tom,
very interesting video.
Guy 13
-
In the 60 when I was a kid there was many orange and tangerine species in my country, then came Monsanto guys and said w/a english accent: we will do these fruits without seeds for you buy seeds from us, the local people laugh.
So in the 80s all fruits seeds were dead, If you plant the seeds nothing will born, nothing, the seeds are dead.
I would like to learn more about this.
-
The problem I have with these anti GMO sites is the use of anecdotes to make their point. This is not a good way to show something is dangerous. They are just opinions.
The real way and only way to show something dangerous to health is by using studies. In particular meta studies that use a vast number of data to show a correlation. That is about anything too not just Roundup. Those studies from what I can tell have been done and they do not show a correlation. I am sympathetic to those that are nervous about them because the government who supposedly collects and analyzes these studies isn't functioning.
Anyways using anecdotes is real easy to make something benign sound dangerous. I could easily twist and distort consumption of apples seeds and make the Cyanide seem deadly. Well it is but there is no where near any dangerous levels in apples seeds.
If you go to that link I showed. Which is about the best thing I have seen on GMOs and herbicide you will hear the anti group talk. Then you can hear Monsanto. They both make good points but Monsanto real shows their colours.
-
For those that think GMO's are safe, needs to watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyI10Z8aH0
Some farmers have proven to themselves about how bad glyphosate in feed is bad for their livestock health. Infertilty, deformed, stillbirth livestock.
-
Thanks Tom
I am going to watch the you tube you just posted and the other stuff this weekend.
-
I would like to learn more about this.
They have disabled the seed gene in these fruits, I not strong in biology.
-
I really hate posting in threads like this. Too many unknowns on both sides. What I do know about precision farming is it is all about yield and crop growth. They farm to the square foot now and control the direction of the seed going into the ground (faster growth right side up), the compaction level of the soil after that split second drop, the amount of water and fertilizer and pesticides is varied across the rows while planting (up to 52 rows), and it is a big boy game.
Monsanto buys and sells $billion dollar companies like you change sticks of gum. They are into data. It is ALL about the data. Using drones and satellite imaging to measure whether a row has had a skip in the seed planted or a double seed planting has occurred. They predict (i.e. control) the amount of yield across the acres and then bet on the crop prices. Without starting a conspiracy on-line, companies like Monsanto are so tied up in what happens in the field, that I bet an investigative sleuth could connect commodity prices to their work in yield. As weather conditions change, so do yields. So then prices of seeds, chemicals, and finished product. Follow the money.
Big brother is controlling everything that goes on in the farmer's fields today and it is all about the profits.
(I am somewhat of a hypocrite here as my team designs and sells precision farming products. $millions worth each year with more to come.)
-
Thanks Pete
-
Monsanto always negatively surprised me, to my know they modify only the seeds and never improve the techniques of planting the farmers use.
-
Thanks Big Red Machine, very well put and informative !
Maybe I am wrong, but your name: '' Big Red Machine ''
is related to red farming machinery yousell ????
(John Deer are green, may I ask what make do you sell, just curious ???)
Guy 13
-
No. JD and CNH are customers for sure.
I spent 25 years doing this.... got a reputation and a moniker....
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=45646)
-
No. JD and CNH are customers for sure.
I spent 25 years doing this.... got a reputation and a moniker....
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=45646)
I just thought you were a Cincinnati Reds fan from the 70's... :D
-
Anybody familiar with Joel Salatin and Polyface Farms? Buddy of mine has always wanted to get out of the city and live a little more self sustained life and came across this guy and his farming techniques. Don't know how he grows his crops but the "strategic disturbance" method sounds interesting. Website says beyond organic, whatever that means...
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
-
No. JD and CNH are customers for sure.
I spent 25 years doing this.... got a reputation and a moniker....
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=45646)
WOW ! That's something really nice.
I am sure you have put hundred of hours on that one.
Guy 13
-
Wow great model. Now that Im adult not help more, I wanted one of those when I was a kid.
-
Anybody familiar with Joel Salatin and Polyface Farms? Buddy of mine has always wanted to get out of the city and live a little more self sustained life and came across this guy and his farming techniques. Don't know how he grows his crops but the "strategic disturbance" method sounds interesting. Website says beyond organic, whatever that means...
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
Thanks for that link.
Very, very interesting.
We need more farmers like that... :thumb:
-
I really hate posting in threads like this. Too many unknowns on both sides. What I do know about precision farming is it is all about yield and crop growth. They farm to the square foot now and control the direction of the seed going into the ground (faster growth right side up), the compaction level of the soil after that split second drop, the amount of water and fertilizer and pesticides is varied across the rows while planting (up to 52 rows), and it is a big boy game.
Monsanto buys and sells $billion dollar companies like you change sticks of gum. They are into data. It is ALL about the data. Using drones and satellite imaging to measure whether a row has had a skip in the seed planted or a double seed planting has occurred. They predict (i.e. control) the amount of yield across the acres and then bet on the crop prices. Without starting a conspiracy on-line, companies like Monsanto are so tied up in what happens in the field, that I bet an investigative sleuth could connect commodity prices to their work in yield. As weather conditions change, so do yields. So then prices of seeds, chemicals, and finished product. Follow the money.
Big brother is controlling everything that goes on in the farmer's fields today and it is all about the profits.
(I am somewhat of a hypocrite here as my team designs and sells precision farming products. $millions worth each year with more to come.)
Their tech is really not in question. They do some real good things like no tillage, lower fuel costs, lower carbon footprint. It's this kind of tech that is the future of farming. The problem is the they run farming to much like a big- business and they think they own canola and corn, what ever else they decide to GMO, by patents.
What they have done is substituted manpower for herbicide. Where the farming manpower existed before they have eliminated for just spraying out herbicide as a way to increase yield. Completely unregulated and full speed ahead.
That is corporate farming.
This is why we need labelling and we need sophisticated labelling. Only because we the market are the ones that have to govern and regulate this by purchasing. Whether it is too complicated or not or gives Big business a big butt hurt in their Big pocket book is not a reason not to. These companies are rich and they can start putting money back into the economy by creating growth in educating the public with labelling. Too bad I don't care about their situation right now and how they are getting rolled over by the Organic side. They need to compete or fail. They do not get to sit in the dark and do what they want. This will expose the bull shit on the organic side too. They seem to be sailing through this unnoticed. The public needs to know what pesticides are being used when. Then and only then maybe they will slow down and start managing it properly.
-
Anybody familiar with Joel Salatin and Polyface Farms? Buddy of mine has always wanted to get out of the city and live a little more self sustained life and came across this guy and his farming techniques. Don't know how he grows his crops but the "strategic disturbance" method sounds interesting. Website says beyond organic, whatever that means...
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
They mean USDA organic stipulations are not standards of quality - just standards that encourage pushing out small farmers.
If you watched him in a documentary they talk about cleaning chickens outside. Due to laws they are not suppose to do that for certain qualification. And yet how clean the chicken product produced was above and beyond the typical in-door place that struggles to keep their product acceptable.
Back to the topic. Don't be fooled, GMO's could be very dangerous. The reality is they are not yet. As I said it only takes a few moved proteins to ruin food for people. Do tomatoes give you heart burn? What if they add that protein to Apples and it ends up in all of them, so you can never comfortably eat apples? Are you deathly allergic to say pine nuts (my mother is)? What if they put that protein in wheat or rice?
-
They mean USDA organic stipulations are not standards of quality - just standards that encourage pushing out small farmers.
If you watched him in a documentary they talk about cleaning chickens outside. Due to laws they are not suppose to do that for certain qualification. And yet how clean the chicken product produced was above and beyond the typical in-door place that struggles to keep their product acceptable.
Back to the topic. Don't be fooled, GMO's could be very dangerous. The reality is they are not yet. As I said it only takes a few moved proteins to ruin food for people. Do tomatoes give you heart burn? What if they add that protein to Apples and it ends up in all of them, so you can never comfortably eat apples? Are you deathly allergic to say pine nuts (my mother is)? What if they put that protein in wheat or rice?
I agree, "GMOs safe" is a compartmentalized statement. The pro GMO advocates push GMO safety on data they have on current products. They try and make you think that the data they have now is a reflection of all GMOs including any future alterations. They do that with out any consideration that their Flag Ship company has a history of immoral and unethical behavior protecting their investments. Monsanto will lie about any defect in their GMOs. You can take that to the bank. I do agree Monsanto will not do this on purpose but they will not own up to and continue to sell it to protect their interests. This company needs to fail and get out of the way Monsanto.
-
Back to the topic. Don't be fooled, GMO's could be very dangerous. The reality is they are not yet.
Not yet Folsum? So you will eat GMO's sprayed with rouddup, will you also eat GMO's sprayed with Agent Orange? That is happening now.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25946
-
Not yet Folsum? So you will eat GMO's sprayed with rouddup, will you also eat GMO's sprayed with Agent Orange? That is happening now.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25946
The irony, they can solve the super weed problem by crop rotation and strategic use of chemical and eventually it will resolve itself. This is all about large mono culture farming of canola, sugar and corn. Pure profit driven remedies.
-
The choice for consumers isn't always simple. Look at one major food crop, sugar beets. The choice consumer's have had to this point hasn't been between organically raised beet sugar or GMO glyphosphate treated product, it's between non GMO sugar beets that use an even worse than Round-Up regimen of pesticide application and GMO sugar beets. I'm the last person to be an apologist or defender of Monsanto's corporate behavior, but the science on the subject of this particular crop's management doesn't convince me that the non GMO alternative is any better. The subject of whether we consume too much industrially farmed beet sugar is a different topic and argument. Like Werd mentions, better agriculture techniques would eliminate much of the need to make these choices. However, we as a society have made the decision to embrace cheap, industrially produced food products. As has been often quoted, too bad we can't get subsidies on broccoli instead of corn, wheat, sugar, etc. Eating well costs a small fortune and it's a goal beyond the means of too many people.
Summary of a U.K study on ecological consequences of glyphosphate vs. traditional weed control programs in sugar beet agriculture: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1634958/
Short story that that ran on NPR about the subject: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch
-
I don't like eating food sprayed with things, that doesn't make me in opposition to GMO. Most GMO foods are sprayed, but that's not the point. They don't have to be.
-
Folsom you gotta know the answer to that is simply washing your food good?
Lab GMOs are designed around corporate farming of huge mono culture crops. They give high yields with lower costs in labor. It's pure robotic farming.
-
Not yet Folsum? So you will eat GMO's sprayed with rouddup, will you also eat GMO's sprayed with Agent Orange? That is happening now.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25946
Good grief... Do you really believe that Agent Orange is being used? Really?
Please, read a bit more. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo (https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo)
-
The funny thing is Round- up is the safest of them all. The industrial use of round up by farmers who have been exposed by mouth is Dilute! Dilute!
That agent orange stuff by Dow. Exposure to it requires immediate hospitalization. Like its fucken panic.
Anyone interest in knowing "WTF is that shit they're spraying?" here is a good way of using Google.
Type this
Manufacture name/chemical/ container label. (Container label is very important or else you get the manufacture bullshit on it.
So for this new Agent Orange
Dow/2.4-D/container label <--- have fun
-
The superweeds that is glysophate resistnat is causing a lot of problems with the farmers, so they are spraying more and more dangerous chemicals for weed control. Glysophate may be safe, but there are adjutants in the chemical that is 100 times more dangerous.
Here is a video of a Monsanto man refusing to drink a glass of roundup after saying it was safe to drink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbfJ4VwHIqw
-
The superweeds that is glysophate resistnat is causing a lot of problems with the farmers, so they are spraying more and more dangerous chemicals for weed control. Glysophate may be safe, but there are adjutants in the chemical that is 100 times more dangerous.
Here is a video of a Monsanto man refusing to drink a glass of roundup after saying it was safe to drink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbfJ4VwHIqw
Yup, you see how the hyperbole they use can blow up in their face. You can't drink it. The container label. Not that stuff they sell in the store. (You can probably drink that :lol:) the warning sign on the label is corrosive
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=144247)
It's exactly the kind of B.S. they are pushing. How do you believe them?
-
What I find interesting is what is happening to Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg is badly polluted. It's full of algae. Lately up until 2013 southern Manitoba was getting serious flooding the worst in 2013. Farmers fields were literally ending up in the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. Flowing into lake Winnipeg then halting since the dam projects were stopping the natural filtration of moving water.
There is no toxicology reports of lake Winnipeg. Well they are there but unreleased. I can't find them on any Gov website. Only strategies for algae cleanup. There is a huge amount of data in Lake Winnipeg as to what roundup is doing.
This has got to be Monsanto's worst nightmare. The lake is the most shallow lake in the world or ranks right up there. The lake at its deepest is only about 15 fifteen feet. It's easily accessible right to the bottom of the lake by anyone with zero budget. Is so shallow that things will just end up at the bottom fast especially if the the northern side sees huge damming for electricity. About the worst lake to have under a microscope if you are trying to hide pollution. The lake was bombarded with tons of farming chemicals for years on end. About 5 years for severe annual flooding and the natural run off that has been going on for years.
-
Here is the link to the organization that got me looking for toxicology reports on lake Winnipeg.
Go to the bottom and read contaminants.
http://www.lakewinnipegresearch.org/aboutscience.html
-
Here is the link to the organization that got me looking for toxicology reports on lake Winnipeg.
Go to the bottom and read contaminants.
http://www.lakewinnipegresearch.org/aboutscience.html
Have you seen Lake Erie's algae problems?
http://lakeeriealgae.com/
-
A plane view of Lake Erie:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u0mFfrU46s
-
Environment Canada has set up initiates for the cleanup of the Canada's lakes. I think the worst is lake Winnipeg though.
-
Folsom you gotta know the answer to that is simply washing your food good?
Lab GMOs are designed around corporate farming of huge mono culture crops. They give high yields with lower costs in labor. It's pure robotic farming.
That's not true the world over. Check out golden rice. It's mostly used in the worst ways, that's true.
Washing food isn't good typically, for all the chemicals. I won't eat non-organic apples because they all taste weird to me like medicine.
-
Water alone will not clean food, but this will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COo56pnPkB8
-
That's not true the world over. Check out golden rice. It's mostly used in the worst ways, that's true.
Washing food isn't good typically, for all the chemicals. I won't eat non-organic apples because they all taste weird to me like medicine.
I was referring to cleaning off any residual Herbicide that was on there.
-
Led by an 18 year old Amish farmer, no pesticides.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-amish-farmer-replacing-pesticides-with-nutrition/380825/
-
I like the story but you have to admit it is unverified. If there is any real innovation there to begin with? A reporter and some 18 year old using anecdotes describing farming does not mean anything actually.
-
:scratch:
Unverified?
Here is an interview with the young Amish man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krUyr7PxkMk
This is his company's website.
http://www.advancingecoag.com/#!john/igzw5
-
Unverified as hearsay. Not independently verified as a new farming strategy. Everything I read about it seems to be just a repeat between the Amish dude and that reporter.
You have to understand I want it to be true. I hate herbicide on GMOs or organic.
-
John even spoke at the UN meeting about this type of farming, no hearsay at all. John told the UN that GMO and herbicides is failing. Did you watch that last video?
-
Watching it now and it looks legit. I hope he does well.
-
Superb farm work, farming not a easy work.
-
News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097
-
News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097
Extract from the link above.
But green groups have hit back against the new study by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization,
pointing out that the chairman of the group leads an institute that received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.
-
News from Deutsche Welle:
http://www.dw.com/en/delay-on-glyphosate-decision-leaves-eu-farmers-in-limbo/a-19270097
Extract from the link above.
But green groups have hit back against the new study by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization,
pointing out that the chairman of the group leads an institute that received a six-figure donation from Monsanto.
-
Monsanto is looking to merge with anyone to get rid of the name Monsanto, known as the most evil company in the world.
-
Even DuPont has better reputation, especially after Nylon.
-
Would Monsanto ever lie?
The World According to Monsanto (FULL LENGTH)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k
-
The real way and only way to show something dangerous to health is by using studies. In particular meta studies that use a vast number of data to show a correlation. That is about anything too not just Roundup. Those studies from what I can tell have been done and they do not show a correlation. I am sympathetic to those that are nervous about them because the government who supposedly collects and analyzes these studies isn't functioning.
Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not. For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation. Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease. For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do. Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for.
Another example. Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins. When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless.
What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game. How many of those have been done?
-
Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not. For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation. Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease. For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do. Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for.
Another example. Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins. When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless.
What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game. How many of those have been done?
There are several, but big ag always disputes it. They don't want to lose a dime.
-
Actually what you want are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where some people eat GMOs and some do not. For the type of epidemiological (epi) data you're describing above, this only proves correlation not causation. Correlation is meaningless, unless it's a huge correlation and has plausible explanations of disease. For instance, smoking = cancer is based on epi evidence, but lung cancer is incredibly rare if you don't smoke and relatively common if you do. Now, a negative correlation might mean we can feel a little better about this, but if Monsanto paid for the study or studies, I guarantee they got what they paid for.
Another example. Statin trials (which are RCTs, by the way) paid for by drug manufacturers indicate some benefit for statins. When an RCT is done and paid for by the government (or some other entity), statins are useless.
What we need are RCTs that are paid for and run by an entity with no skin in the game. How many of those have been done?
Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.
You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.
-
Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.
You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.
That's always a problem. Of course, it hasn't stopped anyone in the past. All of the "saturated fat is bad for you" was originally based on epi evidence of the worst degree.
As for Canola oil, there are some RCTs out there. The problem is that they aren't long enough to determine cancer and the like.
But one must be cautioned about relying on epi evidence. Women's hormone replacement therapy (HRT) comes to mind. Epi evidence "proved" that HRT resulted in lower heart disease for women. It proved it so well that everyone prescribed HRT for woman. Then they did an actual RCT. What did the RCT show? Exactly opposite: HRT increases heart disease. They immediately issued guidance to no longer use HRT for (most) women.
Why is this? Because the women who were taking HRT in the epi studies where healthier overall than those who weren't. They took better care of themselves, were richer, etc. No matter how many studies are combined into a meta-analysis, it's still epi evidence that proves correlation not causation.
And this same effect is in many, many, many studies. And let's not even get into the difference between relative and absolute risk.
Personally, I avoid canola oil and any man-made oil (other than olive oil and avocado oil, and for me these are the least of the evils). There's quite a bit of evidence in my opinion that canola oil and similar oils and their high Omega 6 fats are not good for us, not to mention all of the compounds these create when they are heated. But I can't "prove" any of this, as the RCTs to actually decide the issue have not been done (and never will be -- the entities involved are too powerful). It makes sense to me that we ate animal fat for thousands of years with no ill effects, and we never ate man-made oils like canola oil. It does not make sense (but admittedly could be true) that man-made oils are good for us.
The same is true for me of GMOs--I can't see they would be of a benefit to me. (And this is also true for wheat, which went from 14 chromosomes to 42 by breeding; I think modern wheat is likely bad for us.) They could be good (or at least not bad), but until there's a lot of evidence and particularly RCT evidence, I'd prefer not to eat them.
We each have to make up our own minds based on the evidence at hand.
-
I got a chuckle sort of in a bad way when from above said Dupont,just not right.
-
How do like using avocado oil?
-
Well The type of studies I am talking are Meta so it would have to to exist there first somehow.
You are right though. I am not sure how you can properly assign a correlation between a GMO and cancer when the products that are GMO ATM (Canola, Suger Beats, Corn,) are almost all GMO? There is no data differentiating the two. Almost all Canola is GMO. So how can you tell? You would need two sets Of research data that does not exist.
96% of soy is GMo, 97% of corn is GMO, 100% of sugar beets is GMO, 60% of all sugar is from sugar beets. Therefore 60% of all sugar is GMO.
-
I think that the health issues with GMO should take a backseat to the problem that mass use of GMO seeds decreases the natural diversity of our seed stocks. Not only does this create an economic monopoly but leaves crops more exposed to mass failures when inevitably, pests find a chink in armor of the GMO seeds. So instead having a wide variety of seeds and crops, some of which would have a natural defense to various pests, we would be putting all our eggs into one basket that couldn't be changed before famine or market imbalances ensue.
-
I think that the health issues with GMO should take a backseat to the problem that mass use of GMO seeds decreases the natural diversity of our seed stocks. Not only does this create an economic monopoly but leaves crops more exposed to mass failures when inevitably, pests find a chink in armor of the GMO seeds. So instead having a wide variety of seeds and crops, some of which would have a natural defense to various pests, we would be putting all our eggs into one basket that couldn't be changed before famine or market imbalances ensue.
I agree with the premise of backup. The thing that people seem to forget is the plants we are using now are not anything that is natural to begin with. All the food is a GMO. Literally all of it. The difference, the new stuff is lab GMO for the purpose of spraying herbicide and non lab GMO is modified for other reasons.
The thing that bugs me, what you say is an accurate prediction of the future. Just by looking at past events that will happen again. The Irish Potato Famine is the exact sort of thing you are pointing out. An intentional starvation strategy by holding back food. Now it is easier because all our food has a GMO patent on it.
What's alarming is the exact same institutions are still there and in place that did it. What we are hoping is that they are all grown up and hold some type of 21 st century moral standing. Not likely since they are off deploying war machines everywhere and using them. They haven't grown up at all.
I didn't want to go there with this because it sounds too outlandish and political but it really isn't. Now we have gone ahead and handed over huge food technology to a company that has done exactly what I was talking about. It is actually insane to continue.
-
Are you sure that all our food is GMO? :scratch: From my house, I look down and see a very nice certified organic farm that has been there for 20+ years. In fact, our community has a bunch of organic farms and we also have a seed bank that assures the continuity of our local crops.
-
Yes all of it.
http://youtu.be/1ecT2CaL7NA
What Tyson is neglecting to mention the GMOs that are lab are done to use herbicide for big business. His stance is correct though. "We need to chill out on lab GMOs"
We also need to regulate their herbicide use.
And we need to get rid of Monsanto
-
I would not say correlation is meaningless in dramatic cases as these:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/149978/flu_vaccine_linked_to_800
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/130122/800-children-europe-develop-narcolepsy-after-swine-flu-vaccine-report
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/01/hundreds-children-europe-are-diagnosed-narcolepsy-after-h1n1-vaccine
-
I would not say correlation is meaningless in dramatic cases as these:
http://thestir.cafemom.com/healthy_living/149978/flu_vaccine_linked_to_800
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/health/130122/800-children-europe-develop-narcolepsy-after-swine-flu-vaccine-report
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/01/hundreds-children-europe-are-diagnosed-narcolepsy-after-h1n1-vaccine
-
This discussion would never have risen to its current level of histrionics if the corporate lawyers and courts had not gotten involved. Not counting decisions around the world by courts on whether living organisms and the genes of which they are constructed can be patented the BIG decision was the US Supreme court decision of 2013 which said that naturally occurring DNA threads found in Nature could NOT be patented. That produced the corporate push to alter plant and animal DNA in ways that would never occur in a natural setting. Thus Monsanto, Syngenta, Beyer, etc began changing things they sell so they could stack genes in some way to lock farmers into into only using there seed and their chemicals. I agree that this mono-culture is not good for the soil, water, air, birds and bees but we are really talking about large corporate farms. This type of agriculture is not economically suitable to the developing world but I believe the discussion is missing the important fact that animal husbandry and hybridization of plants goes on for the benefit of human nutrition, supply, ability to survive in hostile growing conditions, uses less water, tilling, faster growth, etc. To throw all genetic changes into one pile and rail against one corporation does not throw light on the real discussion of 'HOW DO YOU FEED THE WORLD WITHOUT DESTROYING THE PLANET ON WHICH WE LIVE'.
-
^^^^
Monsanto is a big problem with that industry from a coporate POV. It's a problem because they are an excellent platform to make people aware and against corporate farming. Monsanto is creating an environment of public interest and making people aware of what is going on. Railing against Monsanto is exactly what you do.
The worst thing you want to do is detach from one company. To try derail Corporate industries lock on the food supply would be harder by looking at many different companies. They are all different. Everything that is wrong with that industry is batched together in one company. That industry is screwing up by not defeating Monsanto themselves. They are trying but Monsanto is like a corporate experiment that escaped from a lab and they can't get it back in. It's running amock screwing that whole industries public image.
Railing against Monsanto is not based upon conspiracy theory ideas. They are providing real empirical evidence of the problems with that industry. You can't just ignore that, it needs to be redirected and turned into action against them and that industry. To protect and make sure the food supply is there.
-
When Beyer takes over Monsanto does the concern go away because on paper Monsanto doesn't exist as a corporate entity? Getting rid of one agricultural seed and associated growing technics company does not solve the problem of being able to create new patent-able plants from finding there way into the food supply. What about all the food plant seeds which have been modified by man to produce new strains of edibles which under the definition, by most of this group discussion, would be banned because they too are GMO's. I think the discussion needs to be narrowed to the effect of farming use of GMO stacked plant seeds and the corporate ownership of patents. These are seeds which will sprout anywhere if planted but have had gene's altered to survive when sprayed with company chemical's that would kill other similar species without the genetic alteration. These are industrial solutions and are sold to farmers because they think they will make more PROFIT using these seeds. The problem is the courts, the governments that pay farmers through insurance subsidies, and farmers themselves who have bought into this process, all of whom agree that this is the way farming should be. All the corporations are doing is what business is designed to do: MAKE MONEY AND LOCK IN THE CONSUMER.
-
“Cancer Causing” Glyphosate Fails to Reach Re-Approval for Third Time in Europe
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/cancer-causing-glyphosate-fails-to-reach-approval-for-third-time-in-europe/
-
When Beyer takes over Monsanto does the concern go away because on paper Monsanto doesn't exist as a corporate entity? Getting rid of one agricultural seed and associated growing technics company does not solve the problem of being able to create new patent-able plants from finding there way into the food supply. What about all the food plant seeds which have been modified by man to produce new strains of edibles which under the definition, by most of this group discussion, would be banned because they too are GMO's. I think the discussion needs to be narrowed to the effect of farming use of GMO stacked plant seeds and the corporate ownership of patents. These are seeds which will sprout anywhere if planted but have had gene's altered to survive when sprayed with company chemical's that would kill other similar species without the genetic alteration. These are industrial solutions and are sold to farmers because they think they will make more PROFIT using these seeds. The problem is the courts, the governments that pay farmers through insurance subsidies, and farmers themselves who have bought into this process, all of whom agree that this is the way farming should be. All the corporations are doing is what business is designed to do: MAKE MONEY AND LOCK IN THE CONSUMER.
That has been my complaint all along.
if Beyer does buy Monsanto you watch and see how the attitude in Europe changes over Glysophate. Monsantos problem in Europe is pure political and brought on by lobbyiest. Likely other seed companies or Government paranoia that does not want an American company with a history linked to the American military dominant in Europe.
What is everyone going to do when Glysophate starts seeing usage due to Unbans in Europe? I expect that.
-
I wouldn't worry about Beyer, what you should really worry about is China National Chemical Corp., or ChemChina. You got to feed 1.4 billion people somehow.
"Glenn Brunkow is a fifth-generation corn and soybean farmer. He and his dad run a small farm about 30 miles from Topeka, Kan.
For more than a decade they've been using seeds and chemicals from Syngenta. The Swiss company is a leader in pesticides and genetically modified seeds.
Recently, Brunkow got a call from his seed dealer to tell him a Chinese state-owned company called China National Chemical Corp., or ChemChina, has made a $43 billion bid to buy Syngenta."
Listen or read more here: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481138239/u-s-lawmakers-scrutinize-chinas-bid-to-buy-agrichemical-giant-syngenta (http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481138239/u-s-lawmakers-scrutinize-chinas-bid-to-buy-agrichemical-giant-syngenta)
Syngenta is a Swiss company and one quarter of it's sales are in the US.
-
This probably don't mean anything.
U.S. Lawmakers Scrutinize China's Bid To Buy Agrichemical Giant Syngenta
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/07/481138239/u-s-lawmakers-scrutinize-chinas-bid-to-buy-agrichemical-giant-syngenta
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/grain-traders-rejecting-new-soybeans-developed-by-monsanto-1462217040 http://www.nationofchange.org/10-companies-controlling-world-s-seed-supply-1 http://www.foodrenegade.com/hybrid-seeds-vs-gmos/382363748
For those of us on this site lack of food is not a problem. For most of the world nutrition is a daily struggle, clean water is a struggle, shelter is a problem. I am old enough to remember when farmers didn't buy seed grain from one company and then use exclusively a product to use on that crop. I remember spraying DDT, Sevin, Aldrin, Dieldrin, and spreading manure and plowing it under in the fall and winter to nourish the next springs crops. We still preserved our food and bought products from stores that we needed. We washed our food, cooked it, ate it and didn't spend a lot of time being concerned about its source. The myth here is that things were somehow better back then and farmers saved seeds to plant next year. If you saved the seeds and planted them next year they may or may not have given you a usable crop. The myth is that organic farmers can produce enough crop to feed the world. Organic farmers own very little acreage and you can still find pesticide residue on the crops because it rains, the wind blows, and the irrigation water comes from a source which contains trace chemicals. Life is a risk and never completely certain. After a lifetime of exposure I have yet to see the effect but then I have always tried to use common sense, humor, and enjoyed everyday.
-
Why can't organic farmers, using the latest and ongoing techniques, feed the world? Saying this is impossible is just giving a rationalization for continued use of pesticides and the encouragement of massive corporate controlled monocrops. Of course, it's impossible to find completely untainted food but that shouldn't give justification to the further monopolistic control of seeds and lax regulation of pesticides. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
The next area the mega corporations are trying to control is water. Potable water is a scarce resource and probably will become even more valuable when it becomes more scarce due to fracking and, of course, more chemical pollution which is a cost not paid for by the polluters.
-
Because it's robotic farming that requires less labour and lots of chemicals. All they have to do is establish a NOAEL set down by the FDA, keep under it, and they are good to go. Also thwart any consistent inspecting of food to meet guidelines. It is all been done.
What will work is by making labels mandatory so the food has to show where it came from. Huge farming lots of herbicide are usually GMOs. If you want to support farms that are smaller than buy food from smaller farms that claim organic.
-
This is what big business wants. They want as little government or regulation as possible unless it protects their interests as a corporation. Then they like lots of regulation. With an attitude - screw the public they are kind of annoying and most of them are dumb, useless, whatever's and we got a wall for that. Then they keep the public in the dark by lobbying the Government in defunding the Universities and education. So the public looks to Corporations to fund their research (since they are the only ones with the cash). Corps then gladly start partnering with education because now they can dictate what gets researched. Stuff that was publically funded showing results of any nefarious activity is now no longer pursued. They only show us the good stuff. That is basically all industry including farming. That is where we are at. That is not capitalism. That is full tilt fascism. Whatever, I can play in the fascist pond (what is left) of family farming. I am going to have to but they can start labelling the food.
My neighborhood just told me a guy just came in from Alberta and bought 200k acres of farmland. That is obscene.
-
The best way to hit back is to grow as much of your own food, and buy from your local farmer's markets. If the locals make the money, more farmers will come out. I have three grandsons under 15 that wants to be a farmer.
-
The best way to hit back is to grow as much of your own food, and buy from your local farmer's markets. If the locals make the money, more farmers will come out. I have three grandsons under 15 that wants to be a farmer.
That's unfortunate. The future of world farming lies with women.
Again, there is much more to the picture than GMOs.
-
By 2025 Half of All Newborns Will Have Autism
GMO and autism
http://www.realfarmacy.com/2025-half-newborns-will-autistic/
-
By 2025 Half of All Newborns Will Have Autism
GMO and autism
http://www.realfarmacy.com/2025-half-newborns-will-autistic/
I doubt that is even remotely true. This is the problem with these click bate sites. They gather info for the purpose of aligning two different topics with out acknowledging the possibility it's false by presenting alternative outcomes. Really if they were interested in finding out about GMOs and Autism they would see variations in the European community. Or nations in Asia where GMOs using Roundup is less. Instead the narrative about GMOs becomes the only possibility. That is known as "Special Pleading". It is basically making arguments that hold no evidence but the person is asking the reader to grant acceptance of their assertion because it fits their narrative. That is not science but click- bait blogging for the purpose of getting traffic on their website. Even if the assertions (by a huge coincidence) are correct.
-
In the Amish community, 1 in 15,000 has autism.
-
In the Amish community, 1 in 15,000 has autism.
Are you trying to say the Amish do not use Roundup? That Amish farmer, your link, his dad was the local herbicide dealer. They use herbicides. In fact if the Amish do not get Autism at known world rates (which I doubt) it proves Herbicide is not the reason.
-
Now back to our regularly scheduled topic: Genetically Modified Organisms
A cutting edge application for a GMO is the ‘Bionic Leaf’ using genetically engineered bacteria.
"By combining advanced catalysts with engineered bacteria, researchers have developed a “bionic leaf” that can produce hydrocarbon fuels such as isopropanol and isobutanol from solar energy, water, and carbon dioxide—and it can do it more efficiently than natural photosynthesis. “Biology is the best chemistry,” says Pamela Silver, a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School and co-developer of the bionic leaf. Though still in a laboratory-scale, proof-of-concept phase, Silver hopes that systems like the bionic leaf could provide a versatile platform for producing a range of useful chemicals."
Give it a listen, just fascinating
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/melding-biology-and-chemistry-in-a-bionic-leaf/ (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/melding-biology-and-chemistry-in-a-bionic-leaf/)
-
Sounds like an expensive air freshener ..oh yah :lol: :jester: :thumb:
-
Autism is more likely in huge numbers due to folic acid supplementation. Again, barking up strange trees mates.
-
Autism is more likely in huge numbers due to folic acid supplementation. Again, barking up strange trees mates.
What? I've never heard of that.
My guess is that autism is multi-factorial, including but not limited to vaccines, genetics, diet (primarily high sugar/carbs and low fat), diet or other factors while in the womb, pesticides, human biome, etc. There may be multiple causes and the same thing might not affect all children the same way. And somehow allergies factor into this, too: why do so many children have allergies, particularly food allergies?
I've been experimenting with Einkorn wheat, which is supposedly an ancient grain (has 14 chromosomes versus modern wheat, which has 40+). It's interesting. I've also been using sourdough, as this supposedly reduces anti-nutrients. I think Einkorn is better than today's wheat, but still causes me high blood sugar and I think chest congestion (which regular wheat, particularly pizza, will cause for me within a short time period). It's hard to tell, though, as my typical diet is low carb, and when I eat sourdough bread, I usually have other carbs too. I bought a blood sugar (and ketone) testing meter and am going to test the difference between Einkorn and regular wheat, one of these days. I'm also going to see if I can eat just Einkorn one of these days to limit variables to see what happens.
-
Now back to our regularly scheduled topic: Genetically Modified Organisms
A cutting edge application for a GMO is the ‘Bionic Leaf’ using genetically engineered bacteria.
"By combining advanced catalysts with engineered bacteria, researchers have developed a “bionic leaf” that can produce hydrocarbon fuels such as isopropanol and isobutanol from solar energy, water, and carbon dioxide—and it can do it more efficiently than natural photosynthesis. “Biology is the best chemistry,” says Pamela Silver, a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School and co-developer of the bionic leaf. Though still in a laboratory-scale, proof-of-concept phase, Silver hopes that systems like the bionic leaf could provide a versatile platform for producing a range of useful chemicals."
Give it a listen, just fascinating
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/melding-biology-and-chemistry-in-a-bionic-leaf/ (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/melding-biology-and-chemistry-in-a-bionic-leaf/)
This is clearly where we're headed using Biofuel with kind of tech.
-
5 Ways You Support Monsanto Every Day Without Even Knowing It
http://althealthworks.com/10096/5-ways-you-support-monsanto-every-day-without-even-knowing-it/
-
Top anti-GMO scientists band together in film exposing threats and secrecy
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/396405163595665408
-
Printable List of Monsanto Owned “Food” Producers
http://www.realfarmacy.com/printable-list-of-monsanto-owned-food-producers/
-
Too sad read this list, near all food makers.
-
Very difficult to avoid daily the Monsanto evil.... :(
-
Very difficult to avoid daily the Monsanto evil.... :(
Even your beloved Lipton tea are owned by them.
-
Even your beloved Lipton tea are owned by them.
That's why I am looking for an equivalent Made (Grown) on Planet Vienam. :thumb:
-
I would take green tea if you can stand the caffeine, just a idea.
-
Monsanto PR War Falls Short: Séralini Wins Lawsuit
http://www.ewao.com/a/monsanto-pr-war-falls-short-seralini-wins-lawsuit/
haha
-
http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/monsanto-product-brands.aspx
I realize that most of you will just take at face value that what gets posted here is total truth and that Monsanto is the great evil in the world; however, if you look at the link you will find that it is a seed, fertilizer, chemical biotech company that sells to farmers. It does not have a food processing or producing division. Anyone can put together a list and post to the internet. Lipton tea is not a division of Monsanto. It is a product of the Unilever Corporation. Buy the products that you like for the right reasons not because of food fear scaremonger.
-
Unilever is owned by Monsanto, just like Coca,Pepsi and all.
http://www.realfarmacy.com/printable-list-of-monsanto-owned-food-producers/
-
Nestle, Pepsi, Monsanto are all in cahoots to fight the introduction of state GMO labeling laws.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/hidden-donors-poured-11m-into-fight-over-genetically-modified-food-labeling/
"GMA ( Grocery Manufacturers Association) was the largest donor, spending more than $11 million. Late in the campaign, Ferguson sued the D.C.-based trade association, saying it had violated state disclosure law by soliciting big money from companies to defeat labeling measures including I-522, while failing to disclose the corporations funding the effort.
The association’s donations were reported only as coming from the GMA, not the individual corporations who had kicked into the fund, including PepsiCo, Nestle and General Mills."
The GMA uses these corporate funds to buy expensive TV advertising and employ slick PR firms to provide the margin to defeat any laws that would cut into their profits and further their agendas.
The whole GMO industry works through so-called independent manufactures organizations to fight against transparency in processed food labeling. Many formally "organic" food companies, such as Odwalla, have been bought out by these huge corporations in order to suppress the truly organic food producers.
-
The entire free-market as it exists today with big business describes their mantra as "Less Government". It's the general complaint of industry that there is way to much government regulation. The equalizing solution is big business will remain compliant to the will of the public through litigation. If there is a problem we are suppose to sue them. As opposed to having government regulation to avoid any negative impact in the interest of the public. That is where we at now and what they try to pull-off as Capitilism.
This is what the food processing industry wants now. They are well aware of the potential litigation so in an effort to bypass or bog down any efforts their strategy is to uneducated the public. Labelling sits right in the face of that strategy because it undermines their business model of food processing in the dark. We just recently seen this played out in the Herbicide end of it. Chemical companies tried to replace the chemicals that describe their patents with trademark names. So instead of Glysophate we would see Roundup. That failed but it really shows what they are up to as it creates a first line of defence in discouraging litigation. It's scummy actually and it really does not make any sense why people are not in full support of labelling.
-
The entire free-market as it exists today with big business describes their mantra as "Less Government". It's the general complaint of industry that there is way to much government regulation. The equalizing solution is big business will remain compliant to the will of the public through litigation. If there is a problem we are suppose to sue them. As opposed to having government regulation to avoid any negative impact in the interest of the public. That is where we at now and what they try to pull-off as Capitilism.
This is what the food processing industry wants now. They are well aware of the potential litigation so in an effort to bypass or bog down any efforts their strategy is to uneducated the public. Labelling sits right in the face of that strategy because it undermines their business model of food processing in the dark. We just recently seen this played out in the Herbicide end of it. Chemical companies tried to replace the chemicals that describe their patents with trademark names. So instead of Glysophate we would see Roundup. That failed but it really shows what they are up to as it creates a first line of defence in discouraging litigation. It's scummy actually and it really does not make any sense why people are not in full support of labelling.
Well said - writen Werd.
I agree 100% with you. :thumb:
Guy 13
-
The entire free-market as it exists today with big business describes their mantra as "Less Government". It's the general complaint of industry that there is way to much government regulation. The equalizing solution is big business will remain compliant to the will of the public through litigation. If there is a problem we are suppose to sue them. As opposed to having government regulation to avoid any negative impact in the interest of the public. That is where we at now and what they try to pull-off as Capitilism.
This is what the food processing industry wants now. They are well aware of the potential litigation so in an effort to bypass or bog down any efforts their strategy is to uneducated the public. Labelling sits right in the face of that strategy because it undermines their business model of food processing in the dark. We just recently seen this played out in the Herbicide end of it. Chemical companies tried to replace the chemicals that describe their patents with trademark names. So instead of Glysophate we would see Roundup. That failed but it really shows what they are up to as it creates a first line of defence in discouraging litigation. It's scummy actually and it really does not make any sense why people are not in full support of labelling.
That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.
Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?
-
What's elitist about it? :scratch:
-
That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.
Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?
GMO food will poison people sooner or later and maybe will modify the soil.
-
That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.
Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?
That may be the most red herring/slippery slope argument I've seen in a long time. I mean if we wiped out GMOs, there's now way one billion people would immediately die. It's not possible.
-
That's probably the single most elitist thing I have ever read.
Please, let me ask you: If you could wave a magic wand and remove 100% of each, every, and all GMOs from both past and present; yet know that more than one billion people would immediately die; would you wave that wand?
The post is not anti-GMO. Its a pro labeling post. The post puts both GMO and non-GMO in the same light. It has nothing to do with population control or the science behind GMOs. The post supports labeling from an education and marketing POV.
Your post is a text book example of a straw argument. It has nothing to do with my post.
-
In many ways the "debate" over GMO foods is already over. With Corn and Canola oil, although the take-up amongst farmers in North America is somewhat less than 100%, the reality is that seed stock has spilled over into the non-GMO crops being grown to the point where the last 10% or so of farmers who are not growing the GMO variety actually are growing the GMO variety.
Canola is a bit of a special case, in that it has two very different GMO aspects to it. It is, in fact, the world's first Genetically Modified Food. The fact that we can consumer Canola Oil in the first place is the result of Genetic Engineering when a poison was removed from Rapeseed, creating the edible, heart-smart vegetable oil Canola (in 1952). The second aspect is the Monsanto GMO modification making Canola resistant to Roundup (which is such an old herbicide that the patents have run out and generic versions are commonplace). The so-called "Roundup-Ready" Canola variety is grown by more than 90% of farmers in North America, essentially insuring that any store-bought container of Canola Oil is GMO.
With corn, it's similar in that more than 90% of the crop grown in North America is the GMO variety, and corn is such a common ingredient in US-produced foods (it's less common in foods produced in Canada or Mexico, since without the US Sugar Tariffs, sugars from other sources are much cheaper in those countries, and in Canada livestock is typically grain-fed rather than corn fed (Oats, Barley, Wheat) again because subsidies for Corn don't exist as they do in America (where corn is sold by US growers below the cost of production and the difference made up by subsidies).
But there is plenty of other foods that are GMO that North American consumers routinely buy ... seedless varieties of most fruits, for example.
I don't know about the "one billion people would die" argument, but I do know that GMO variants of many foods, where the result is resistance to common fungus or other crop perils, has significantly reduced the application of pesticides worldwide (they are not needed). Again, it's hard to argue against a benefit such as that, even amongst those who prefer "greener" options in our food supply.
The State of California has concluded, after a meta-study examination of GMO foods (where a number of studies are pooled, examined and compared) of I believe 1700 Studies over many years has concluded that a female who lived to the average lifespan of US women, and who during her youth, child-bearing years, and beyond, ate the full amount of the recommended amount and number of fruits and vegetables per day for her entire life, were those fruits and vegetables GMO varieties would not experience any health issues as a result. Males are somewhat less at risk to almost any similar perils. The State of Cali can find cancer in 40 things we touch every day, so to me this is compelling.
I am in my 50's and almost anything I eat in what is left of my lifetime (I almost died last year, within hours of it according to the doctors in the ICU I woke up in, fell into a Coma and had most of my organs shut down before someone came along and called an ambulance) isn't going to have time to affect my health over what I'm already in store for, so personally it's not an issue to me whether I eat the seedless variety of grapes a few times a week. For younger people, or those with young children, perhaps the issue is more dear to them. For me, I have looked into it, and concluded that as far as my own diet is concerned, it's a non-issue.
-
I agree we are getting GMOs whether we like it or not. All farmed food is a GMO. The problem that exists are GMOs programmed to resist herbicides designed to be used with them. Buying up huge tracks of land for the purpose of farming a single crop is Corporate farming. How much Canola is being used for Ethanol? I am guessing lots and I've read %80 is fuel based production. Wheat, Oats and cereal crops are not GMO'd to withstand herbicide. How bad are the crops? You missing out on any cereal or bread lately? This is about pure robotic farming to generate mono crops for the purpose of producing sugar for junk food and oil for burning in gas engines. Also corn for feed. This use of farmland with blanket spraying of herbicides is the problem. Not some GMO
I keep hearing about feeding the planet. Which is the most laughable thing when applied to GMOs in corporate farming. They are not about feeding the planet. They are about buying up huge tracks of land and planting crops that can be used to make the world fat and fuel engines. Yes lab GMOs will be useful in feeding the hungry. But they will not come from a Monsanto lab.. like every body Wake UP! :lol:
Btw pesticide use and herbicide use has gone up heavily. We see it in our lakes with Algae BLooms that have not existed until recently. Lake Winnipeg is a good example and Lake Erie. Completely filled with farming phosphates from run off. Herbicides use has gone up big time. Saying it hasn't is factually wrong.
-
What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup? Could we see the huge Roundup enabled monocrops fail within a relatively short period of time? If 90% of corn, wheat and soy crops are "protected" by Roundup and they all fail; that would be a catastrophe of global proportions.
The monocrops lack the natural diversity and natural selection that protects them from mass failures of this scale.
A healthy crop should have some plants die of pests so that the others that have a natural immunity thrive and
natural selection can run its course. We should work with nature and encourage this natural weeding out process.
-
What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup? Could we see the huge Roundup enabled monocrops fail within a relatively short period of time? If 90% of corn, wheat and soy crops are "protected" by Roundup and they all fail; that would be a catastrophe of global proportions.
The monocrops lack the natural diversity and natural selection that protects them from mass failures of this scale.
I already know how that will sound off. You will have Monsanto claiming the problem exists outside their farming technology and its not their fault. They will claim the problem is from over use of herbicide non lab GMO'd crops.
Monsanto operates in a fashion that completely undermines our way of life. Their history is herbicides destroying vegetation with Bio weaponry. They are on campaign to generate controversy with GMOs while concealing their real problems with herbicide use. They got every one thinking herbicide use is not a problem and safe. They produce data on cancer and GMOs, and they are using social media (shilling) science sites to moderate and point people in the wrong direction towards GMO controversy. Not telling anyone or hoping no one notices that the exact same thing that went on in Vietnam (using Bio Weaponry)destroying jungle vegetation is exactly what is happening to our lakes and rivers. All from farming chemicals sold by Monsanto and others. The destruction is huge to the environment and is extremely obvious in our lakes. It's about the over use of chemicals that makes them money.
So now we have organic farms which use herbicides but it's far less and it's not a blanket toss. vs Coroporate farming that basically doesn't give a shit. To the point they mislead the public and create smoke n mirror science sites along with campaigns against labelling. They do not want people figuring anything out. That is the problem with Big Business and especially Monsanto.
The thing with the Science-shilling I have seen on social media are the use of memes to misdirect from (issues of herbicide overuse) to using data on cancer in GMOs.
-
All farmed food is a GMO.
NO... we need to be aware of and differentiate between breeding and genetic modification. 2 totally different things. Breeding is natural, genetic modification is not. Breeding is how we get different breeds of dogs, etc, but breeding wouldn't allow us to created a bird/dog hybrid that can fly because dogs can't breed with birds. With GMO we are combining genetics that could never naturally happen. BIG difference!
-
What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup?
This is currently happening.
People celebrate the reduction of pesticides required by GMO plants, but there are other issues as you've pointed out. The reduction in pesticides is only a short term thing, after that things will get worse than they were before.
Plenty of documentaries about the results of farmers buying into Monsanto crops in many countries, it has done an incredible amount of harm.
IMO, GMO is just stupidity and arrogance, and the people who say organic can't feed the world are incredibly misguided. I've actually farmed and gardened before, I know what's possible. I've owned an organic mushroom farm and worked with farmers, sold at farmer's markets etc... The truth is when people say organic farming can't feed the world that's only because the current organic acreage can't. The real truth is organic can be more productive and more reliable vs chemical/gmo agriculture.
People are getting brainwashed.... what we really need is a return to local, organic farming where the majority of food is produced locally. The amount of fossil fuels used to transport food is incredible and the process for converting fossil fuels to fertilizer is also an abomination. Our food supply is so intertwined with fossil fuel use at this point it's inseparable and the world depends on fossil fuels to grow and distribute food. This is a major problem, and the reason food production needs to return to local organic farms.
-
NO... we need to be aware of and differentiate between breeding and genetic modification. 2 totally different things. Breeding is natural, genetic modification is not. Breeding is how we get different breeds of dogs, etc, but breeding wouldn't allow us to created a bird/dog hybrid that can fly because dogs can't breed with birds. With GMO we are combining genetics that could never naturally happen. BIG difference!
No they are same thing as breeding. What you are alluding to is a potential at altering genetics among different species. What we see from lab GMOs are not that. Adding a resistance is not like adding or making the crop different. It is just looking for resistance to herbicide in genomes. They do not hack together different species to make a new species. That would be fucked up and disconcerting.
I like the organic farming though. Not so much that I am anti GMO but I do not like Corporate farming and they seem to spew out a lot of chemicals by default. For crops that do not really have any food value. It's all processed garbage or animal feed or Ethanol. I guess we have apples now.
-
No they are same thing as breeding. What you are alluding to is a potential at altering genetics among different species. What we see from lab GMOs are not that. Adding a resistance is not like adding or making the crop different. It is just looking for resistance to herbicide in genomes. They do not hack together different species to make a new species. That would be fucked up and disconcerting.
I like the organic farming though. Not so much that I am anti GMO but I do not like Corporate farming and they seem to spew out a lot of chemicals by default. For crops that do not really have any food value. It's all processed garbage or animal feed or Ethanol. I guess we have apples now.
What I'm saying is they can find a gene in a pig and insert it into a fish, or a plant even... this is common.
A quick search pulled up a pig altered with E Coli bacteria and mouse genetics, and a cabbage that produces scorpion venom:
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/mad-science
OTOH, selective breeding for yields, quality, etc. is within the range of naturally occurring events and and shouldn't be confused with GMO.
-
Ok I see, I was only referring to what is approved by the FDA and EPA and our CFIA.
-
Ok I see, I was only referring to what is approved by the FDA and EPA and our CFIA.
Again, that is elitist. You have no concept of world hunger.
I asked you before; I'll ask you again. In what language should your problem-solving labels be written?
GMOs solve an immediate, and growing, threat to mankind. Whether you like, or dislike, how the world is going about taking care of the future is irrelevant. How can you not see that?
-
Again, that is elitist. You have no concept of world hunger.
I asked you before; I'll ask you again. In what language should your problem-solving labels be written?
GMOs solve an immediate, and growing, threat to mankind. Whether you like, or dislike, how the world is going about taking care of the future is irrelevant. How can you not see that?
You appear to be stuck on this "feeding the world" merry-go-round. I am not arguing GMOs will play apart. I said they probably will at some point. You see it as this great golden opportunity. How did you come to this conclusion? Starvation isn't about no food. It is about the political corruption that oozes out of countries at the are heart of these famines. Getting food and growing food to them is not a problem its getting past the armed cartels or militias that are causing the starvation. That is the problem.
What ever food they get is not an issue for labeling. I am only concerned with Canada which would be English or French. I would ultimately like to see the States too but judging by the choices in political leaders, I can see being rational will not be noted... So I can only hope for the best.
-
You appear to be stuck on this "feeding the world" merry-go-round. I am not arguing GMOs will play apart. I said they probably will at some point. You see it as this great golden opportunity. How did you come to this conclusion? Starvation isn't about no food. It is about the political corruption that oozes out of countries at the are heart of these famines. Getting food and growing food to them is not a problem its getting past the armed cartels or militias that are causing the starvation. That is the problem.
What ever food they get is not an issue for labeling. I am only concerned with Canada which would be English or French. I would ultimately like to see the States too but judging by the choices in political leaders, I can see being rational will not be noted... So I can only hope for the best.
Okay, so you're just an asshole? :duh:
What do people think on this? Is everyone ok with these genetically modified grown stuff? Frankenfoods born out of Monsanto lab. Do we trust Monsanto and their GMO'd herbicided tolerant stuff? Remember they brought us stuff like PCBs and bio weaponry like Agent Orange. Sold it too knowing full well it was evil.
-
Okay, so you're just an asshole? :duh:
Ok, so you got Monsanto Stock and can't justify no-Labeling other than applying some obscure connection with World hunger? :duh:
-
Of course I own stock. :duh:
I am trying to work out this persistent attempt to align Monsanto with Norman Borlaug....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM)
-
What do you mean by "elitist"? Are you sure you're using the word properly?
-
What do you mean by "elitist"? Are you sure you're using the word properly?
By 'elitist', I mean that if you have a refrigerator, a store that has food you can buy food from at any time, a roof over your head to keep your refrigerator within, and ad nauseam, that maybe one just might be putting too much emphasis on labels and farming modifications.
Have you ever been so laughingly hungry that you could eat the ass out of a dead horse and not care?
Millions of people live that, for real, every single minute of every single day.
Discounting that is elitist.
Do you understand the word?
-
Of course I own stock. :duh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pA32cD1DM)
I wonder what he would have said about the current state of our Lakes and Rivers due to the dependency use of herbicides and fertilizers? Its too bad he is not around to see none of Monsanto's potential he aspires too as has been realized. Only to continue functioning in a realm of Big Corporate farming aimed at maximizing profits. This is the type of stuff I was talking about, creating a Smoke N Mirrors front. Trying to look good while acting like a Big Corp would. They need to quit suing on their patents and quit developing GMO farming tech for Ethanol. All that land could be used to farm for the needy... right? That is what you are saying right? Well its not happening
-
Ignorance is bliss, werd. Rock On. :rock:
-
By 'elitist', I mean that if you have a refrigerator, a store that has food you can buy food from at any time, a roof over your head to keep your refrigerator within, and ad nauseam, that maybe one just might be putting too much emphasis on labels and farming modifications.
Have you ever been so laughingly hungry that you could eat the ass out of a dead horse and not care?
Millions of people live that, for real, every single minute of every single day.
Discounting that is elitist.
Do you understand the word?
Whose discounting that?
You still don't understand the word.
Now if one doesn't appreciate or care that millions of people are on the edge of starvation then using the word "callous" would be better usage.
www.dictionary.com/browse/callous
insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic: They have a callous attitude toward the sufferings of others. 3. having a callus; indurated, as parts of the skin exposed to friction. verb (used with or without object)
Elitist | Define Elitist at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/elitist
Elitist definition, (of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society: elitist ...
Sorry for being "elitist". :lol:
-
No need to apologize. :thumb:
There are starving people that don't give one tiny shit about labeling, or how food is grown. They are hungry.
Judging them (or their will) is elitist, by your own definitions.
Please, broaden your perspective. Not by your vocabulary, but by your understanding.
-
What do you mean by "elitist"? Are you sure you're using the word properly?
He thinks that since I don't hold a fairy tale perception of Monsanto and GMOs I don't understand famine. Or what it's like to be hungry. That is his logic. He thinks Norman Borlaug's work in India is a mirror image of Monsanto's great claim to feeding the hungry. It hasn't occurred to him Monsanto is not about to start acting like Norman Borlaug in the 60s. The whole reason there is famine is because the entire wealth of the world are held in Corporations like Monsanto. They ain't about to start handing out the wealth. Monsanto is looking at being bought for about $50,000,000,000. I doubt it will happen. Why would it? life's great at the top looking down at all the starving people.
-
Okay.
I just submitted your thoughts herein to the Nobel Committee, werd. :thumb:
I mean really, fuck that guy Norman Borlaug, right? What the fuck does a Nobel Laureate know compared to you? You clearly are smarter than him, and can provide the world food solution for the next century.
Thank you. You are my everlasting hero.
-
WTF does Norman Borlaug, the poor, GMO science, your misunderstanding of Nobel prizes, have to do with fricken Labeling? Answer that! Make it clear, quit beating around the bush. :lol:
-
WTF does Norman Borlaug, the poor, GMO science, your misunderstanding of Nobel prizes, have to do with fricken Labeling? Answer that! Make it clear, quit beating around the bush. :lol:
NOTHING!!!!
-
NOTHING!!!!
:lol: k I get it :thumb:
-
WTF does Norman Borlaug, the poor, GMO science, your misunderstanding of Nobel prizes, have to do with fricken Labeling? Answer that! Make it clear, quit beating around the bush. :lol:
-
:lol: k I get it :thumb:
The truly sad part is that you do not. :(
-
The truly sad part is that you do not. :(
Just a couple of more generic GE memes and references to starving kids. Then I'm sure I would have got it. You gave up too quick.
-
What happens when the pests develop resistance to Roundup? Could we see the huge Roundup enabled monocrops[sic] fail within a relatively short period of time? If 90% of corn, wheat and soy crops are "protected" by Roundup and they all fail; that would be a catastrophe of global proportions.
The monocrops[sic] lack the natural diversity and natural selection that protects them from mass failures of this scale.
A healthy crop should have some plants die of pests so that the others that have a natural immunity thrive and
natural selection can run its course. We should work with nature and encourage this natural weeding out process.
For starters, there is no GMO wheat and for technical reasons, there is little chance there will be.
I know nothing of Soy; that is a crop that is essentially non-existant in Canada and as an ingredient is only found in factory foods imported from the US, which is rarer than you might think. They do sell Soy milk here, but I don't drink it.
"Roundup" is a trade mark for a broad leaf herbicide whose patent expired years ago (in 2000) ... the proper term today is Glyphosate.
As a broad-leaf herbicide, if not applied in the stage where your unwanted plants ... we generally call these "weeds" ... are grown to the point where they exhibit leaves, it does nothing. There is little chance that weeds will become resistant due to how it works ... it looks to the weed as an amino acid necessary for growth, and then interferes with that plant's uptake of essential nutrients in a process that would normally involve the desired (to the weed) amino acid.
It is fairly weak ... you can use it on your lawn and it won't kill the grass because a blade of grass doesn't present enough leaf surface area, while a dandelion, for example, does.
It can only be used during an active growth stage, which is why the wanted crop ... say, Soybeans ... must be resistant to Glyphosate, otherwise it too would be killed.
Since it takes Genetic Science to create the Glyphosate-resistant food crop, I would have thought it obvious that the weeds aren't going to lab-engineer themselves.
The data on toxicity is weak when indicated, and not indicated enough that the positive results may simply be experimental error. In other words if we here on Audio Circle were to begin our own study on Glyphosate, the chances are that we will get a result that is indistinguishable from random chance. Thus, most scientists and Government Agencies (I mean even the Germans say that " ... the available data is contradictory ..." and " ... far from being convincing ...") are slowly coming to the conclusion that it's harmless to humans, if only because if it were harmful, it would show up as such in the thousands of studies so far with far more consistency.
The elusive toxicity conclusion is despite that it is easily the most commonly used herbicide in North American agriculture and the second most widely used in people's homes and yards.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but my personal experience is something that is truly toxic is a lot easier to find than Glyphosate seems to be, especially when it's been used in the tonnage it has been, over so many decades. I'm retired and almost dead from natural causes, and Monsanto first brought it to market when I was a High School student.
I do understand why industry doesn't want labeling. For starters, the GMO universe is a bazillion times bigger than Monsanto and Roundup, yet we debate as if it were the only GMO example on Earth. Far from it.
Secondly, the ordinary consumer knows nothing, or next-to-nothing, of what GMO means, what foods are affected, and what benefits it provides beyond the negative association with the growth of the Factory Farm ( a trend that goes back 100 years) and the profits of a handful of evil corporations. So the chances the significance of a label will be mis-interpreted is high.
I do not blame those who work to create suspicion and fear in the consumers' mind ... that is how advocacy works. Without fear there is no human reaction ... practically every single TV ad starts by fear-mongering, followed by a solution that just happens to cost money. There is almost no other effective means to get people to fall off their wallets. I get that.
I personally don't see a need for it, but I am equally confident that if mandatory GMO labeling were to arrive, the sheer number of GMO labeled foods, and the kinds of foods they are ... from frozen pizzas to half the fresh fruit and vegetables in the outside aisles ... will just result in consumers either educating themselves or ignoring the label. Of course, we should not forget that it will raise the cost of food when providers are forced to comply, but that doesn't affect me because there is no push for labelling where I live.
-
Norman were a fervent transgenic defender, when in my country to visit large farmers and advertise Monsanto products he said the future farming is in the hands of the new technologies(guess GMO).
-
I wonder what he would have said about the current state of our Lakes and Rivers due to the dependency use of herbicides and fertilizers? Its too bad he is not around to see none of Monsanto's potential he aspires too as has been realized. Only to continue functioning in a realm of Big Corporate farming aimed at maximizing profits. This is the type of stuff I was talking about, creating a Smoke N Mirrors front. Trying to look good while acting like a Big Corp would. They need to quit suing on their patents and quit developing GMO farming tech for Ethanol. All that land could be used to farm for the needy... right? That is what you are saying right? Well its not happening
I do not believe Monsanto is interested much in selling Roundup. They had a good run, the patents ran out almost twenty years ago, and the majority of the Glyphosate sold in the world today isn't from a can labeled Monsanto.
They are, however, interested in selling seed stock of Glyphosate-resistant food crops.
I have no idea what the "state of our lakes and rivers" has to do with Roundup / Glyphosate.
Algae blooms and the like are a result of fertilizers, not the application of Glyphosate, which decays to nothing within 2 to 140 days (depending on a lot of different factors) and doesn't runoff easily in the first place (stays in soil). The alternative to Glyphosate is harsher pesticides that do remain in the environment. I definitely prefer the GMO crop and Glyphosate to the non-GMO crop and large scale application of pesticides, some of which are water-soluable.
Remember, six million people die every year today of Malaria, because we humans could not be trusted to apply the safest pesticide to humans the world has ever known in quantities that killed insect pests adequately but did not poison the environment. We could be eradicating Zika today if we hadn't blown it when we had the tools to do so. But Noooooooo. We had to indiscriminately apply it in does of "if some is good, 400 times too much ought to be about right".
-
I personally don't see a need for it, but I am equally confident that if mandatory GMO labeling were to arrive, the sheer number of GMO labeled foods, and the kinds of foods they are ... from frozen pizzas to half the fresh fruit and vegetables in the outside aisles ... will just result in consumers either educating themselves or ignoring the label. Of course, we should not forget that it will raise the cost of food when providers are forced to comply, but that doesn't affect me because there is no push for labelling where I live.
I get the lethargy it is basically how i felt. That complacency is left over from a time when government was in control of industry through regulation. Although a lot of the regulations are still there the departments are so underfunded that it basically acts like there is no regulation until a problem is presented to them. Usually from the public. The public not knowing or understanding GMOs is not a reason to not-label. The reason behind labelling is to educate the public how food is processed right from start to finish. That is not being taught in schools (at all) unless you take some type of AGRO course. This entire sector of information is missing from the public. With this entire new form of Lab GMOs coming I am saying now is the time to start becoming informed where are food is coming from and how it was conceived.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/food-safety-workers-among-hardest-hit-by-harper-budget-cuts/article4099513/
The first thing i thought when i read about labelling was tobacco labelling. Necessary but really on our food labels? That is not the type of labelling unless you want to include diseases like diabetes, then it might be time to illustrate diabetes on high sugar content food. Labelling does not even have to be on the label. It can appear as scanning bar code readable by personnel phone or tablet at the end of the aisle.
Its time to start labelling and quite worrying about the pocket books of Multi National Corps. They can not charge any more for food its already too high. They will have to assume the cost if we make them do it.
-
Johnny2bad
Everything you said is valid. I started off exactly the same way. Except what kept bothering me was I could not find one. I mean one good reason to not-label when I started looking into it. The reasons I get always ends up me feeling sorry for companies like Dow or Monsanto. Then I wake up and I think. WTF was I just thinking?!
Screw Monsanto and their cohorts. They can afford all of this and with a track record like Monsanto it is literally insane to not label.
-
I do not believe Monsanto is interested much in selling Roundup. They had a good run, the patents ran out almost twenty years ago, and the majority of the Glyphosate sold in the world today isn't from a can labeled Monsanto.
They are, however, interested in selling seed stock of Glyphosate-resistant food crops.
I have no idea what the "state of our lakes and rivers" has to do with Roundup / Glyphosate.
Algae blooms and the like are a result of fertilizers, not the application of Glyphosate, which decays to nothing within 2 to 140 days (depending on a lot of different factors) and doesn't runoff easily in the first place (stays in soil). The alternative to Glyphosate is harsher pesticides that do remain in the environment. I definitely prefer the GMO crop and Glyphosate to the non-GMO crop and large scale application of pesticides, some of which are water-soluable.
Remember, six million people die every year today of Malaria, because we humans could not be trusted to apply the safest pesticide to humans the world has ever known in quantities that killed insect pests adequately but did not poison the environment. We could be eradicating Zika today if we hadn't blown it when we had the tools to do so. But Noooooooo. We had to indiscriminately apply it in does of "if some is good, 400 times too much ought to be about right".
Lakes and rivers are continually hammered by farming chemicals. That is obvious and well known. Where it comes from are the run-offs into rivers. Although there is less erosion due to tillage there is flattening and removal of natural barriers that causes huge spring run offs and flooding. Especially by Corporate farming. There is a ton of erosion as the moving water takes the soil and chemicals with it and ends up in our rivers or lakes. So where we save on no tillage erosion it just ends up getting spent on run off erosion. Some years are worse than others.
I admit I was somewhat misleading about roundup in the lakes and rivers but we know there are tons of fertilizers. So it is safe to assume there are contaminants left behind also. It would be good to know what is in our lakes but that data is not there. Either by not looking for it or left unreported there is a lack of info on contaminants.
This is the Web page for the Consortium on Lake Winnipeg. Here is the what got me looking around for any info on what the Gov might know about contaminants in their Websites. I could not find anything anywhere. Go to bottom of page and read about contaminants.
http://www.lakewinnipegresearch.org/aboutscience.html
-
" ... Lakes and rivers are continually hammered by farming chemicals. That is obvious and well known. ..."
Certainly there are issues with runoff. You mention Lake Winnipeg ... Manitoba (and many other states / provinces) have problems with large-scale Hog Farms ... practically the definition of "factory farm" ... and the runoff from these operations is a serious problem. Just an example. But it's not a GMO example.
The products used in GMO food crops are not part of the runoff problem. In Manitoba they grow a huge amount of Canola and like everywhere on the Prairies I'm sure there is Alfalfa (look for the bee hives in the fields). Not much corn (lots in Ontario and of course everywhere in the US including right across the border in Minnesota) and at that point I'm running out of crops with any GMO implications that might be grown there.
The associated crop inputs do not runoff, for one, but stay in the soil. They don't stay in the soil for long (as little as 2 and up to about 150 days). If they do somehow end up in the water (maybe a container is improperly disposed of) then they disperse to undetectable levels in water much faster than in soil (at most, half as long). If there is an issue with crop inputs I would think that fertilizers are the bigger issue, and perhaps 2.4.D. Neither are GMO-related except insofar that a GMO crop would not necessarily use less than a non-GMO crop.
And of course the largest number of GMO foods are the plants themselves ... I can envision a cartoon of corn plants marching onto the beaches and into the lakes but I don't see how that can jump the pesky barrier that separates fantasy from reality ;-)
Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America.
There seems to be the impression that the EU bans GMO foods but that is not the case; they grow and market many GMO foods in Europe.
In the US, it's estimated that three quarters of all processed food contains GMO ingredients. A large portion of the milk in the US contains GMO'd growth hormones (not allowed in milk in Canada) and it's worth pointing out, since so many seem to fail to see it, that all your Dairy products like cheese, yogurt, ice cream, etc are all derived from the milk, and any qualities of that milk will be in those products.
A knowledgable consumer can just read the mandatory nutrition labels and know pretty much whether there are GMO ingredients in the product ... is there soy products, canola oil, other seed oils, tomatoes, potatoes, flax seed, corn-anything, sugar, milk ingredients, avocados, certain apple varieties ... well, the list goes on, but ... these are all likely GMO ingredients. I doubt you could buy a bakery product that is GMO free in the typical supermarket and going to the mom-and-pop bakery is no solution ... they use the same ingredients as the factory bakeries who churn out bread by the ton (or tonne) daily.
Many of those GMO ingredients are pest-resistant varieties that have nothing whatsoever with Monsanto and Roundup. Some GMO crops were engineered to incorporate vitamins not normally found in that crop. A GMO'd variety of rice is designed to eliminate deficiencies in children that do result in death and disease, broadly similar to adding iron to breakfast cereal or Vitamin D to milk.
The point being there are nearly innumerable traits that can be incorporated into a plant DNA that benefit humanity (and those are precisely what most GMO crop sciences achieve). There is nothing inherently wrong with the method used to incorporate those traits ... to say rice with Vitamin A via GMO is evil while milk with Vitamin A from mixing it in liquid form is God-sent is really misrepresenting the issue in my opinion.
Nations like India and China are avid GMO promoters because they do grow crops that are more resilient to natural pests or disease and greater yields, no matter how you spin it, means less hunger in these economically challenged nations. The Genie is out of the bottle.
Again, I see no real issue with GMO labelling in the supermarket but at the same time I don't really see a benefit either. Plus, it inevitably will increase the cost of food. I am not sure how you help the poorer consumer who already may be nutritionally challenged by increasing the cost of food, but of course you could always increase support and minimum wages, to compensate. I would have a problem with someone who both advocates labelling and lowering income support for the poor ... that is a person who must hate his fellow man.
-
I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. :scratch: Certainly, it's not related to actual costs related to the designing the label. Why shouldn't the customers know whatever they want to related to the product they're about to buy unless its a trade secret.
" Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America."
EDIT.
Actually, according to this site,http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=New+Zealand
food prices a lower in New Zealand than in the US. 1.65% lower.
In Australia food prices are only 1.14% higher.
Just because food costs are higher in New Zealand and Aus. doesn't mean that this is because of GMO labeling.
Has this been proven? I suspect that the prices would be higher there regardless of GMO label requirements.
IMO the supposed cost increases because of a label is a red herring.
The GMO industry is constantly trying to corner the market in food production and this red herring argument is just another arrow in the quiver. The problem is that when you get excessive concentration in one industry prices will eventually rise. Also anti competitive market sectors lead, like in nature, towards less diversity, creativity and innovation.
-
I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. :scratch: ...
Government Regulation is never free, my friend. :thumb:
-
Government Regulation is never free, my friend. :thumb:
That's just a statement not an argument.
No, it actually lowers prices in certain circumstances. It's not a black and white issue. If you have a monopoly, that means that the monopolist can set the prices to maximize profits and use its control over supply to achieve that end.
Government regulations and effective enforcement are necessary to regulate markets and assure that capitalism doesn't degenerate into oligopoly.
Would you like to get rid of the FDA so that the meat producers can use the factory rats to stuff their sausage? I'd much rather pay the slightly higher price to assure that certain standards are upheld.
-
You're correct; it's a statement.
Tyson Foods is a $42B per year producer of chicken. Here is what they say about GMOs: http://www.tysonsustainability.com/2013/products/food-safety-and-quality/gmos (http://www.tysonsustainability.com/2013/products/food-safety-and-quality/gmos)
It is clear that they assume GMOs are being used. That assumption is free-of-charge. However, if Tyson Foods were forced to figure out every single part of their supply chain, every day forever, and ensure adequate labeling every day forever, you can bet that their shareholders wouldn't let it pass for free. We, the consumer, would bear the financial burden of a label most people would never read. And yes, I mean most people never read labels; if they did, nobody would use a typical mass-marketed shampoo.
It is interesting to note, though, that Tyson Foods, with their massive Risk Management, Liability, and Litigation departments, has instituted antibiotic-free chicken by 2017. Why do you think they did that? Do you think the same folks that see this 'risk' have never heard of GMOs?
What if Tyson was to tell their suppliers "No more GMOs; not of any kind." Well, Tyson would most likely go out of business and the price of chicken would skyrocket. If Tyson's supply-chain vendors decided to invest all of their money to stay onboard, they would need to quadruple the size of their crops. They would need more water, more fertilizer, and more herbicide and pesticide. Again, they will surely pass this cost along to Tyson.
What about fresh food in a restaurant? I love sushi, and have some every week. A staple appetizer is edamame, or baby soy beans. How are they supposed to label this? How are they supposed to label the rice in my favorite sashimi? How about the chicken teriyaki my girlfriend orders?
Which brings us to litigation. Every jerk-off law firm in the country would be going after the labeling, stating that it's inadequate and demanding a settlement. We dealt with it here in California for years after the passage of Prop 65 (The Clean Water Act). This was a group of attorneys determined to pack the courts with unnecessary litigation to show the world how nonsensical the law really was. All they did was drive up prices for everything, because companies needed to accrue for potential losses. These accruals stop new investments in growth and profitability. Again, these costs are passed to the consumer.
There's an argument to support the statement.
Have fun,
Jerry
-
Huge Wake Up Call for Monsanto in Europe as Glyphosate Approval Hits Serious Roadblocks
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/3322-2/
Russia has totally banned GMO's. Severely punished if this law is broken.
Processed junk will go higher, real food will probably go lower, law of supply and demand. More people are waking up and planting their own gardens. Our local farmers are always cheaper than the local stores.
-
Before anybody's head explodes by my 'argument' regarding Tyson Foods and "antibiotic free", please see this: http://www.google.com/patents/US7771736 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7771736).
New methods will hit the shelves, bet everything you can. :thumb:
-
I still don't understand how a label causes a rise in prices. :scratch: Certainly, it's not related to actual costs related to the designing the label. Why shouldn't the customers know whatever they want to related to the product they're about to buy unless its a trade secret.
" Australia and New Zealand have GMO labelling and have had it for many years. Food costs more in both nations versus what we pay in North America."
EDIT.
Actually, according to this site,http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=New+Zealand
food prices a lower in New Zealand than in the US. 1.65% lower.
In Australia food prices are only 1.14% higher.
Just because food costs are higher in New Zealand and Aus. doesn't mean that this is because of GMO labeling.
Has this been proven? I suspect that the prices would be higher there regardless of GMO label requirements.
IMO the supposed cost increases because of a label is a red herring.
The GMO industry is constantly trying to corner the market in food production and this red herring argument is just another arrow in the quiver. The problem is that when you get excessive concentration in one industry prices will eventually rise. Also anti competitive market sectors lead, like in nature, towards less diversity, creativity and innovation.
The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.
With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.
This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.
For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.
Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.
We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.
With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).
Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.
Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.
A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".
As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.
-
The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.
With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.
This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.
For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.
Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.
We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.
With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).
Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.
Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.
A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".
As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.
Just eat real food, no junk.
-
Actually, a new label is probably just a few clicks away and is easily added to the production line. It would be no different than if they were to change the appearance of a current label which is done on many brands regularly . Just like potato chips, cereal, bread...whatever. What big companies don't like is bad PR.
IMO Monsanto, et al should just agree to the GMO label because by fighting it they lose because of the negative publicity which will affect their bottom line more than any label. Therefore no impact on prices to the consumer. :thumb:
-
Actually, a new label is probably just a few clicks away and is easily added to the production line. It would be no different than if they were to change the appearance of a current label which is done on many brands regularly . Just like potato chips, cereal, bread...whatever. What big companies don't like is bad PR.
IMO Monsanto, et al should just agree to the GMO label because by fighting it they lose because of the negative publicity which will affect their bottom line more than any label. Therefore no impact on prices to the consumer. :thumb:
GMOs have opted out and are letting the Organic industry do it for them at the grocery. Which is about the worse decision and real problem for Corp grown food. The entire show is run by the Organic industry. It makes me laugh at Big Corp. haha at Big business. That is how bad they do not want labelling. They will not even compete and then hope something comes out of their anti lobbying campaigns. Total fail! :lol:
-
Gluten free foods - are they healthy or a fraud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV3Fu7kBg4
-
Gluten free foods - are they healthy or a fraud?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV3Fu7kBg4
Thanks Tom,
that's an interesting link.
It shows (In my opinion) that you cannot trust large food corporation and - or labelling.
Guy 13
-
" ... Lakes and rivers are continually hammered by farming chemicals. That is obvious and well known. ..."
Certainly there are issues with runoff. You mention Lake Winnipeg ... Manitoba (and many other states / provinces) have problems with large-scale Hog Farms ... practically the definition of "factory farm" ... and the runoff from these operations is a serious problem. Just an example. But it's not a GMO example.
.
No it is not a GMO issue it is a farming issue. Exacerbated by Corp Farming because they are about huge farming with no land obstacles and as few farming employees as possible. What makes GMOs so attractive to Corp farming is how good they work with herbicides. Which is good but it really has paved the way for huge single crop farms. Farming best done by moving all land obstacles out of the way and running it with a blanket use of herbicides and fertilizers that all end up in our water ways. For food that is either for Sugar, Canola (Ethanol) or Corn.
It is funny that you should mention the Pig farming. One of my son's classroom friends had a pig Ranch..haha. They had lots of pigs until about one year they had about 5 feet of water come through and killed all their pigs. Of course the water went right on pass the farm and ended up in the South Saskatchewan. Guess who they attributed all the water too? Take a guess? It starts with a big M and they had research farms stripped of natural barriers and lots of spring melt that year in that area. I don't know if their claims where the water came from were true, but I didn't see the point in them lying about it. Now they just farm and gave up on swine.
This is what farmers typically do. They look for the 100 year flood line or close to it. They build their house on that land. They farm everything else. They do this because they know if there's lots of snow it brings spring-melts. Depending on how much water there is it will either move or dry up. Flooding is a serious problem in farming and they don't want their house in it. They also build up the land that they put their house on. Just look as you drive down the highway you can see their property is elevated.
-
The label is a one-time cost. That has to be paid by someone as well, but it's impact can be amortized over all production, so in the end it's impact is minimal.
With any new labelling requirement, however, somebody has to create and audit a paper trail for all ingredients. Generally when it comes to manufactured food (maybe you buy canned soup, or frozen pizza) the grower creates the documentation (expense to the farmer, GMO or non-GMO), the manufacturer compiles and audits that documentation with every shipment of raw ingredients and with every change in grower, and then provides that information to the consumer via labelling.
This is an ongoing expense. This becomes a bigger issue for small food manufacturers than large ones, but regardless, it costs money that has to be recovered from somewhere.
For a real-world example, we can look at the issue of Country-Of-Origin regulations for meat products, which was for the last few years the law in the US. The cost of tracking and auditing the data required to meet the obligation was so high, all US meat packing plants simply stopped buying any beef or pork that was not born, raised and finished in the USA. During the time the regulations were in place, the cost to the consumer of meat products in the US rose measurably and persistently.
Any Canadian will have multiple US TV stations in their cable, Satellite or DSL TV package. I have television feeds from stations in Boston, New York (Rochester and NYC), Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles. I see the local supermarket ads. Trust me, a steak in my local grocery store is a few dollars a pound cheaper than any of these other cities, and it was not difficult to see the prices rise over the last few years.
We are talking real money out of real consumer pockets in a well documented real instance of a labelling requirement increasing the cost of food production, and note that this is a relatively simple amount of information to track compared to, say, a frozen pizza with dozens of ingredients.
With regard to comparing the cost of food in New Zealand or Australia and the US, food cost is higher in the US than Canada as well, and that despite Canadian costs having risen since the collapse of the price of oil (because that affects the value of he Canadian currency, which increases the cost of imported foods. Canada must import most fresh fruit and vegetables during winter months).
Neither has GMO labelling at present, but my point is there are many factors that enter into overall food costs. Pretending that a mandatory regulatory obligation costs nothing isn't a reasonable position to hold, I'm afraid. I am willing to go so far as to maintain that should you ask any businessman or corporation, the need to meet regulatory obligations is their biggest annoyance and in every example results in increased cost of doing business.
Adding a unique labelling component must result in an increase in costs that has to be borne by someone. I think I know who that someone usually is.
A genuine increase in the cost of doing business in an assessment of the costs of doing business is not and cannot be, by definition, a "red herring".
As I've posted here before, I don't care whether there is a GMO labelling requirement or not. Although this is framed mainly as an issue facing consumers in, say, Maine, there are plenty of people here in Canada who are chomping at the bit to generate a similar requirement here. But I an not going to stand up and argue that it cannot result in some increase in my food costs. That is an untenable position to hold.
Where do you get the idea lower oil prices raises the cost of living? Price of lower Oil should drop the cost of living. The cost of transporting stuff around has dropped. (Well its suppose to but there appears to be an inflated price to our oil lately)? That should negate any higher costs that might come in from the Loonie going down. Which demand for the Loonie can be actively controlled by the Bank of Canada with Interest rates on the World Market. I know its a juggling act.
The same kind of economic juggling act can be played by the Food Processing industries and Corporate farms with labeling. The money saved from deregulation and underfunding government agencies in favor of lower Corporate taxes. Can now be spent on educating their buying market on how food is processed. I know it sucks but they can't have it both ways. Which is it? Higher government oversight with higher taxes or the cost of labeling and educating the buying market where and how their food is farmed and made.
Anybody that wants to leave the food supply in the hands of Chemical Giants like DOW or Monsanto or Tyson chicken (who apparently according to JerryM, doesn't know where the fuck they get their chicken from) does not understand the problems we are about to face with food.
-
Huge Wake Up Call for Monsanto in Europe as Glyphosate Approval Hits Serious Roadblocks
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/3322-2/
Russia has totally banned GMO's. Severely punished if this law is broken.
Processed junk will go higher, real food will probably go lower, law of supply and demand. More people are waking up and planting their own gardens. Our local farmers are always cheaper than the local stores.
+1
I always try to avoid buying food from the big grocery chains such as Safeway, QFC et al. It would be great to see an even larger resurgence of small local farms. The local farms can be competitive because they don't have to deal with ever higher transportation costs, advertising, packing costs, excessive management compensation, etc.
Also the food is usually organically grown and is fresher. The farms are owned by small entrepreneurs or they're coops that employ local people. In addition, the profits remain in the neighborhood, so to speak, thereby helping the local economy.
-
When I found out that Monsanto made Agent Orange, vaults for my coffin and controls the food supply, I decided I shouldn't believe a word they say.
Doc
-
When I found out that Monsanto made Agent Orange, vaults for my coffin and controls the food supply, I decided I shouldn't believe a word they say.
Doc
Not only that we have hindsight. We know Monsanto will sell (knowingly) carcinogenic chemicals. We know they will try and hide it until their done with it or their inventory is depleted. The way they handled PCBs pretty much sums it up.
We now know Glysophate (through agencies we have to trust) like FDA or EPA isn't causing cancer or toxic if kept under the NOAEL guidelines.
But what bugs me is they started using Glysophate with GMOs back in the 90s. Long before there was any real definitive evidence. They went hardcore too not really knowing the long term effect.
That is a big problem and why Monsanto can not be trusted. Because we know they will lie about it to the bitter end if it's carcinogenic or have some type of negative impact.
-
{snip}
But what bugs me is they started using Glysophate with GMOs back in the 90s.
Glysophate (as Monsanto Roundup) in the 1970's.
Glysophate-resistant food crops in the 1990's.
Monsanto Roundup patent expires 2000.
Dozens of Glysophate manufacturers today, many from China.
I certainly can see the reason people single out Monsanto for the GMO foods issue, but there is a huge number of players in that game (only listing companies and research organizations that have active GMO products for sale in the US):.
Dow
Mycogen/Dow
Bayer/Genective
Bayer Cropscience
Aventis
Calgene
J. R. Simplot
University of Florida
Cornell University
Asgrow
Upjohn
Forage Genetics
Pioneer
Stine Seed
Syngenta
BASF
M. S. Technologies
AgrEvo
Du Pont
K. W. S. SAAT AG
Okanagan *
... and there are more, actually
Any comments about the politicians and lobbies (the "Corn Lobby", which is an alliance of farmers and industry, is a very powerful advocate of GMO foods in the US) who were required to pass legislation enabling GMO foods to enter the marketplace?
In the US there was a successful anti-Stem Cell lobby; why no successful anti-GMO groups? Why was legislation allowing patenting of foods and living organisms passed (without the enabling legislation on patents, there is no GMO foods).
What is the legislative situation, and what was the legislative battle like, in whatever country you live in, if not from the US?
* Okanagan is the developer of the latest approved GMO food in the US; it's a non-browning apple.
-
I meant the RoundUp ready crops with the GMOs in the 90s. It seems likely it was originally meant for Canola Ethanol and corn for feed. It probably got pass all the original negative attention by not being marketed for human consumption. Would have to go looking at newspapers. Do not know how you find that out for sure? I have never come across anything around the inception. It would be interesting to know.
-
Where do you get the idea lower oil prices raises the cost of living? Price of lower Oil should drop the cost of living. {snip}
In Canada, the value of the currency is significantly dependent on commodity prices. The fall in the value of oil is responsible for a 20 cent drop of the $C versus the USD (and oil is priced in USD).
When the currency falls in value over the short term (a few years versus, say, versus the 10 year average when stable) there is not much in the way of trade benefits (lower export prices, thus increasing sales of said exports) ... things move much more slowly than that, so you don't get the exploitation of increased demand for exports by, say, building a plant to expand production.
At the same time, imports increase in cost. How long a period before that affects you varies. A significant portion of our food imports are perishables, so the cost increase can happen in a matter of days or weeks.
With the Canadian economy, as an individual consumer, the increase in import costs affects the food budget significantly while the lowering of the cost of crude oil does not result in a similar lowering of the monthly budget (the retail price of oil does not change in proportion to the cost of crude).
Have the airlines eliminated their fuel surcharges? No, they haven't. Many companies who need long-term price stability will buy what amounts to currency insurance to minimize price fluctuations. But with food this isn't possible; the contracts are too short-lived.
Taken together, the impact on the $C is higher than the impact of lower crude prices in the consumer's budget.
Although the above is specific to Canada, it works the same elsewhere. With the US Dollar, it's somewhat different, because as the dominant world currency the US is immune to some factors that every other nation would have to deal with. (Prior to WWII, it was the British Pound that was the dominant currency and probably before this century is over, it will be the Chinese Yuan).
In essence, a trade factor that might cause the Australian Dollar (for example) to swing in value abruptly might only alter the value of the USD slightly or possibly not at all. No-one else enjoys that protection, however.
It's a complex system. In the last decade or so we've seen where the $C has ranged from roughly $US 1.10 to $US 0.70. That's a big swing.
(Plus, you and I both live in 'toon, so we experience the same local economy. We live in the province that has the highest exports as a % of GDP, so our local economy benefits the most from a fall in the $C. Plus the nature of SK export production allows us to react quickly to take advantage currency value changes. Most places in Canada don't have it as good, they pay more for imports but earnings and jobs are much slower to materialize for export earnings).
Since this reply is somewhat off-topic, I won't be replying to any subsequent posts on the subject.
-
Monsanto’s Corrupt Senators Desperately Trying To Stop Vermont’s Impending GMO Labeling Law
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/monsantos-corrupt-senators-desperately-trying-to-stop-vermonts-impending-gmo-labeling-law/
This is to take effect July 1.
-
So why blame Monsanto?
"Monsanto was first to genetically modify plant cells in the early 1980s"
Here is a good article on Monsanto's GMO history.
http://www.truthwiki.org/monsanto/
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the politicians are to blame as much as Monsanto !
After all, the politicians are paid by our taxes to protect us ? ? ? ?
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the politicians are to blame as much as Monsanto !
After all, the politicians are paid by our taxes to protect us ? ? ? ?
Yep, so right. :thumb: Here is a video of President Bush Sr. at Monsanto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi41QwwyZE0
-
Thanks Johnny2bad :thumb:
-
Yep, so right. :thumb: Here is a video of President Bush Sr. at Monsanto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi41QwwyZE0
Who controls the food controls you.
-
Yep, so right. :thumb: Here is a video of President Bush Sr. at Monsanto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi41QwwyZE0
Thanks Tom!
-
Oops, GMO crops have a bigger yield? nope! :duh:
“The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.”
http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/6#66
-
Oops, GMO crops have a bigger yield? nope! :duh:
“The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.”
http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/6#66
That is why they need to quit suing the farmer. The yields are not bigger. Although they do seem to be slightly larger and only beneficial to great big huge Corp farming.
Bottom of PG.81 about insecticide use makes recommendations that seed companies should make available to the farmer seed varieties that are useful to the farmers situation to avoid pest resistance.
Wonder if that will happen?
It really looks like Monsanto is trying to re invent farming (or have people believe such) so they can charge more for something they can do on their own. What Monsanto is trying to do is akin to what we are seeing in the audio industry with licensing. It reminds me of MQA streaming that is being attempted. Make it sound like something great, but just ends up being a front end charge for nothing. IMO :P
This is interesting. Thanks for the Monsanto shaming :thumb:
-
Oops, GMO crops have a bigger yield? nope! :duh:
“The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-technology on the rate of yield increase.”
http://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/6#66
Yes, the fact is organic farming is most efficient in terms of quality and yield. Those who think differently have no clue and no real experience.
-
Yes, the fact is organic farming is most efficient in terms of quality and yield. Those who think differently have no clue and no real experience.
Dave, the report is not about organic. It's says nothing about organic. It compares GE crops vs non-GE crops. The differences were marginal and sometimes non existent.
-
This Grocery Store Sells Health Food For The Price of Fast-Food
http://www.ewao.com/a/grocery-store-sells-health-food-price-fast-food/
-
This Grocery Store Sells Health Food For The Price of Fast-Food
http://www.ewao.com/a/grocery-store-sells-health-food-price-fast-food/
Yes.... That's good,
but they are not in Saigon, Vietnam or Montreal, Canada. :(
Maybe one day, when I am dead !
Guy 13
-
Finally got some labeling laws. Hopefully all the starving kids will be able to read GMO on the labels. :duh: :lol: I guess if you gene splice different species you have to announce it on the label as GMO. Food grown swamped in Monsanto Herbicide I don't think have to label. I guess we could have a swamped in Herbicide label next.
http://thevillagessuntimes.com/2016/06/28/senators-say-compromise-reached-on-gmo-labeling-bill/
-
Breaking news! Monsanto agrees to supply Roundup-soaked sugar packets to starving children to aid Unicef... :duh:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/unicef-annuald-child-poverty-report-2016-1.3655492
-
West African Country Ditches Monsanto’s GMO Cotton & Demands Compensation
http://www.ewao.com/a/1-west-african-country-ditches-monsantos-gmo-cotton-demands-compensation/
-
Monsanto Fingerprints Found All Over Attack On Organic Food
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-malkan/monsanto-fingerprints-fou_b_10757524.html
-
Big decline in the population of honey bees. Could Roundup laced crops be a cause of this?
http://naturalsociety.com/37-million-bees-found-dead-canada-large-gmo-crop-planting/
-
More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing. Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C...
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
http://m.slashdot.org/story/313193
-
Yeah but that's not the point. What if Roundup is destroying the bee population?
We're talking about a bigger issues than just how GMOs affect the health of humans. We're also talking about monocrops and their potential for being subject to mass failure when pests adapt to Roundup. Also is it a good idea for an entire industry to be heading towards a monopoly?.
How many Nobel laureates refused to sign the letter?
Undoubtedly many of signatories are not specialists in GMO so their opinions are just opinions. How many of them are or were employed by the chemical fertilizer industrial complex?
-
Some of you folks don't understand that the world population is putting undue strain on the food chain. The oceans are being fished out. The push for "organically" grown food is also a problem. If we only had organically raised food, about 75% of you are going to have to die. The yield of organically produced food is very low, and hence, is why it costs so much. GMOs are here to increase production of food on a limited acreage of land, so that we can attempt to feed the worlds population. Are there bad side effects? Unknown at this time. The weeds have already genetically modified themselves to become immune to Round-up ready crops. Many insects have done the same.
The destruction of bee-hives is not linked to GMOs, but rather other agricultural spraying practices that are now under review.
So to sum it all up:
Not using GMOs is not the answer.
Practicing birth control is one of the answers.
Fishing the crap out of the oceans is not the answer.
Going all organic is a death sentence for many, and is also not the answer.
Raising cattle that can grass feed is part of the answer. (piss on cow farts).
The world really needs to dial its popluation levels back to pre World War II levels.
Wayner
-
Wayner the problem facing famine are in a bunch of different countries. Each country needs to address it individually. Which is kind of happening. It can't be summed-up by a campaign coming from industry saying
"We can feed the world with our Tech"
There is no way they can do it. All they are doing is grandstanding and trying to pump up their tech. It's also not realistic to conceive the intentions of multinationals to address the issues with blindness due to famine truthfully. When the reason famine and poverty exists, the entire wealth of the world are in the hands of the same corps that claim they can solve an issue.
They ain't solving anything. They are in the way in fact of hunger. So when I see stuff like Golden Rice and Vitamin A. it makes me wonder what they are really after. Especially when they know their claims are unattainable but a bandaid to real problems.
-
http://m.slashdot.org/story/313193
Now I become very afraid. Last time it happened the smooth and peaceful old man created the atomic era and all that bads things came and until today he is seen as a great respectable man by the world press, no one stands up against him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter
-
If it's made by Monsanto it can't be good. These are the people who made Agent Orange and told us it was harmless to humans. These are also the people who make vaults for your coffin. Do you really want to trust them with the food supply?
Doc
-
Actually there's no consensus on why the honey bees are dying. Why are the bees dying? :scratch: What happens if there's a massive bee die off? Are we next? :(
Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behaviour
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/217/19/3457
-
Wayner the problem facing famine are in a bunch of different countries. Each country needs to address it individually. Which is kind of happening. It can't be summed-up by a campaign coming from industry saying
"We can feed the world with our Tech"
There is no way they can do it. All they are doing is grandstanding and trying to pump up their tech. It's also not realistic to conceive the intentions of multinationals to address the issues with blindness due to famine truthfully. When the reason famine and poverty exists, the entire wealth of the world are in the hands of the same corps that claim they can solve an issue.
They ain't solving anything. They are in the way in fact of hunger. So when I see stuff like Golden Rice and Vitamin A. it makes me wonder what they are really after. Especially when they know their claims are unattainable but a bandaid to real problems.
The major cause of famine in most third world countries is the leadership (which is usually a dictator). I remember stories of the UN sending food to such countries and it sat on ships to rot or the government took all of it to buy military weapons........
'ner
-
We need more local farms, small family owned farms especially in poor countries.
" To solve the food crisis we need to fix the food system. That entails re-regulating the market, reducing the oligopolistic power of the agri-foods corporations, and building agro-ecologically resilient family agriculture. We need to make food affordable by turning the food system into an engine for local economic development in both rural and urban areas. These tasks are not mutually exclusive—we don’t have to wait to fix the food system before making food affordable, marketing fair, or farming viable. In fact, the three need to work in concert, complementing each other. "
http://www.worldhunger.org/holt-gimenez/
-
40% of our food is wasted every year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WREXBUZBrS8c
France has made a new law on supermarkets to give much of their food to the needy cuttnig down this waste.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets
-
The major cause of famine in most third world countries is the leadership (which is usually a dictator). I remember stories of the UN sending food to such countries and it sat on ships to rot or the government took all of it to buy military weapons........
'ner
That's how it ends up. It starts off by some enterprise or country going in and setting up an industry. The warlords are put there to keep the peace. Its get out of control and becomes non repairable.
-
If it's made by Monsanto it can't be good. These are the people who made Agent Orange and told us it was harmless to humans. These are also the people who make vaults for your coffin. Do you really want to trust them with the food supply?
Doc
If at some point, some leader decides to fly off their lid and go psycho. (Don't tell me It cant happen, it happens all the time.)
They are the exact kind of people you want running a corp and controlling the food supply working for you. Makes it easy for them to wipe a few million people out or control the food to make demands.
They already have in fact with Vietnam using herbicide. So we know they will do it.
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310111849.htm Colony collapse is a complex world wide problem and many agencies have been collecting data intensely since 2006. Latest data suggests that nectar and pollen quality affect hive health. Moving bees to different locations during the growing season to pollinate a singular crop stresses and causes colonies to be malnourished. Parasites and the pesticides that bee keepers then spray on the hives. Modern farming techniques all contribute to poor bee health and not just honey bees are involved in crop pollination. I live in a valley with vines, fruit tree orchards, worth millions of dollars and the local bees are doing fine. Farmers do not import bees for pollination and most use as little pesticide, herbicide as possible.
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160310111849.htm Colony collapse is a complex world wide problem and many agencies have been collecting data intensely since 2006. Latest data suggests that nectar and pollen quality affect hive health. Moving bees to different locations during the growing season to pollinate a singular crop stresses and causes colonies to be malnourished. Parasites and the pesticides that bee keepers then spray on the hives. Modern farming techniques all contribute to poor bee health and not just honey bees are involved in crop pollination. I live in a valley with vines, fruit tree orchards, worth millions of dollars and the local bees are doing fine. Farmers do not import bees for pollination and most use as little pesticide, herbicide as possible.
I like how Monsanto broadcasts Glysophate is safe for humans if kept under the NOAEL. It is there Ace (they use it all the time). Then they claim Bee's are not affected by Glysophate with out any references or knowing what the NOAEL is for exposure to Glysophate by bees.
-
For the AudioCircle members like me that did not know the meaning of '' NOAEL '' ? ? ?
No-observed-adverse-effect level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hate all those abreviations.... :(
-
Chuck Norris Calls Out Monsanto For Killing Food Supply
http://naturalsociety.com/chuck-norris-calls-monsanto-killing-food-supply/
-
Much of any problem seems largely due to too much consumption of the not-recreational-drug-marijuana. :D
(http://www.hostpic.org/images/1607052201090121.jpg) (http://www.hostpic.org/view.php?filename=1607052201090121.jpg)
-
Much of any problem seems largely due to too much consumption of the not-recreational-drug-marijuana. :D
(http://www.hostpic.org/images/1607052201090121.jpg) (http://www.hostpic.org/view.php?filename=1607052201090121.jpg)
For your information, he quit on the advice of his physician quite some time ago.
Doc
-
Much of any problem seems largely due to too much consumption of the not-recreational-drug-marijuana. :D
(http://www.hostpic.org/images/1607052201090121.jpg) (http://www.hostpic.org/view.php?filename=1607052201090121.jpg)
:lol:
-
I guess the paranoia can be boiled down to one of two things
1: Smoke too much weed that brings on irrational paranoia
or
2: Observe past practices of a company drenched in exposing the public to carcinogenic and toxic substances. Then lying about it until a court orders them not too. All while engaging in biological warfare in a overseas country for the purpose of destroying vegetation and food...
:scratch:
Since I don't smoke weed (surprise!) I guess 2 works for me.... :lol:
-
Glyphosate Given Last-Minute Approval Despite Failure to Secure Majority Support(EU)
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/29/glyphosate-approved-eu/
-
Much of any problem seems largely due to too much consumption of the not-recreational-drug-marijuana. :D
(http://www.hostpic.org/images/1607052201090121.jpg) (http://www.hostpic.org/view.php?filename=1607052201090121.jpg)
Sorta looks like you with shades and hair. :lol: (http://www.audiocircle.com/useravatars/avatar_104.jpg)Better smile though...must be stoned. :green:
Despite being a stoner he's made history, will live forever through his music, fabulously rich, has children, happily married, has a fantastic sound system, his own studio, beautiful estate and still lives a very productive life. :thumb:
-
I guess the paranoia can be boiled down to one of two things
1: Smoke too much weed that brings on irrational paranoia
or
2: Observe past practices of a company drenched in exposing the public to carcinogenic and toxic substances. Then lying about it until a court orders them not too. All while engaging in biological warfare in a overseas country for the purpose of destroying vegetation and food...
:scratch:
Since I don't smoke weed (surprise!) I guess 2 works for me.... :lol:
You're a smart man Wered. I didn't think I'd ever say that.
Doc
-
Some of you folks don't understand that the world population is putting undue strain on the food chain. The oceans are being fished out. The push for "organically" grown food is also a problem. If we only had organically raised food, about 75% of you are going to have to die. The yield of organically produced food is very low, and hence, is why it costs so much. GMOs are here to increase production of food on a limited acreage of land, so that we can attempt to feed the worlds population. Are there bad side effects? Unknown at this time. The weeds have already genetically modified themselves to become immune to Round-up ready crops. Many insects have done the same.
The destruction of bee-hives is not linked to GMOs, but rather other agricultural spraying practices that are now under review.
So to sum it all up:
Not using GMOs is not the answer.
Practicing birth control is one of the answers.
Fishing the crap out of the oceans is not the answer.
Going all organic is a death sentence for many, and is also not the answer.
Raising cattle that can grass feed is part of the answer. (piss on cow farts).
The world really needs to dial its popluation levels back to pre World War II levels.
Wayner
Your information about organic farming and yields is entirely propaganda, not one bit of truth to it. We currently don't have enough area dedicated to organic farming to support the population, but it IS entirely possible. What we can't do is continue with agriculture that is entirely dependent on fossil fuels to function. GMOs are a roll of the dice, we can't predict all the possible results.
Also, the weeds don't "genetically modify" themselves, the definition of "GMO" and genetic modification is one of gene splicing, not simply breeding or adaptation. That is not GMO!
Bees are sensitive to several things and you can't say GMO crops don't harm the bees, we don't know that for sure. We DO know neonicitinoid type pesticides harm bees, also some kinds of EM fields.
-
You're a smart man Wered. I didn't think I'd ever say that.
Doc
Its the gear I chose that makes me smart. :lol:
-
Some of you folks don't understand that the world population is putting undue strain on the food chain. The oceans are being fished out. The push for "organically" grown food is also a problem. If we only had organically raised food, about 75% of you are going to have to die. The yield of organically produced food is very low, and hence, is why it costs so much. GMOs are here to increase production of food on a limited acreage of land, so that we can attempt to feed the worlds population. Are there bad side effects? Unknown at this time. The weeds have already genetically modified themselves to become immune to Round-up ready crops. Many insects have done the same.
The destruction of bee-hives is not linked to GMOs, but rather other agricultural spraying practices that are now under review.
So to sum it all up:
Not using GMOs is not the answer.
Practicing birth control is one of the answers.
Fishing the crap out of the oceans is not the answer.
Going all organic is a death sentence for many, and is also not the answer.
Raising cattle that can grass feed is part of the answer. (piss on cow farts).
The world really needs to dial its popluation levels back to pre World War II levels.
Wayner
GMO crops are designed to increase profits. They are not grown to "feed the world". There is a big difference. There appears to be this push to make GMOs popular because they are going to solve famine problems. There is nothing that doesn't exists (right now) that can not solve famine outside GMOs. GMOs are not going to solve hunger problems. They could, but that means the way the world does business would have to change. That is not going to happen.
Now with some gambling. I will see your cow fart and raise you a cow patty.... :lol:
-
GMO crops are designed to increase profits. They are not grown to "feed the world".
Now you hit the real thrut behind GMO, this is final point to me.
-
deleted.....
-
Today, to me,
everything is about profits $ $ $ $
Period.
Guy 13
-
IARC Scientist Reaffirms Glyphosate's Link to Cancer as Monsanto's Requests to Dismiss Cancer Lawsuits Denied
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/37885-iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-requests-to-dismiss-cancer-lawsuits-denied
-
IARC Scientist Reaffirms Glyphosate's Link to Cancer as Monsanto's Requests to Dismiss Cancer Lawsuits Denied
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/37885-iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-requests-to-dismiss-cancer-lawsuits-denied
Thanks for that link.
Very interesting.
It's not because you are a BIG corporation that you can get away
with everything you want.
Guy 13
-
Costco Is Selling So Much Organic Produce, It’s Helping Farmers Grow More
http://www.ewao.com/a/costco-selling-much-organic-produce-helping-farmers-grow/
As a result, Costco has launched a pilot program to loan organic farmers money to buy land and equipment to increase the supply of the wholesome fruits and veggies.
-
Hi all,
spending one year in Montreal, Canada
I did my weakly grocery shopping at Walmart,
why Walmart and not Metro, Provigo, IGA (Local guys) ?
Because Walmart was 20% or more cheaper than the other guys.
In addition, Walmart had more bio-organic fresh produces.
I did many times price comparaison between standard grown
and organic grows produces
and organic was in general 20 to 50% more expensive.
Bananas where the item that had the least price difference between standard
and organic grown.
I am ready to buy organic grown,
but with a budget of a retired man, cannot always afford it.
Guy 13
-
IARC Scientist Reaffirms Glyphosate's Link to Cancer as Monsanto's Requests to Dismiss Cancer Lawsuits Denied
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/37885-iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-requests-to-dismiss-cancer-lawsuits-denied
Nice post :thumb:.
Clears things up.
-
Now the food manufacturers are trying to hide the information and I don't have a smartphone. http://qz.com/729778/big-food-is-disclosing-the-nitty-gritty-details-of-our-food-in-a-place-where-no-one-looks/
-
Now the food manufacturers are trying to hide the information and I don't have a smartphone. http://qz.com/729778/big-food-is-disclosing-the-nitty-gritty-details-of-our-food-in-a-place-where-no-one-looks/
Scanner reading for labeling is not unreasonable. Not using scanner codes will only limit the amount of info. I am beginning to see tablets in aisles for scanners so you probably won't need a phone shortly.
-
Scanner reading for labeling is not unreasonable. Not using scanner codes will only limit the amount of info. I am beginning to see tablets in aisles for scanners so you probably won't need a phone shortly.
But have you read what is exempt? A lot of GMO products including sugar beets and soy oil, all 100% GMO.
https://consumerist.com/2016/07/12/federal-gmo-labeling-bill-opens-more-loopholes-than-it-closes/
-
Mama Monsanto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eclf6dbsXZ8
-
Bayer up offer to buy Monsanto today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/14/bayer-monsanto-offer/87079576/
-
I dunno for sure, but as a former phD organic chemistry student w/ some biochem experience, I doubt GMO will hurt you. Yeah, I like organic food myself. I quit eating meat about 6 years ago, more because I don't like the way modern factory farms treat animals, but I suppose there are health benefits. My primary care doc was amazed by how low my lipid and cholesterol levels were for someone my age.
Yeah, I sorta think Monsanto sucks. They developed Roundup herbicide and then sold ag seeds that were engineered to tolerate, essentially owning the market.
The downside of that as I see as someone with a science background is it limits genetic diversity. Which is essential for resistance to disease.
However, maybe the plus side is GMO's can be a very helpful to the third world. I think I read an article about an engineered rice plant that produces vitamin A which is needed for good vision development, (if I remember correctly) This vitamin is not normally found in regular rice
But I seriously doubt GMO foods will unleash some sort of disease or other direct health issue.
I think any potential problems are more economic. It seems like fewer companies are controlling more of our lives these days. And that leads to monopolies and price fixing etc. Hell, years ago I thought Walmart was the boogyman who ran all the small retailers out of business. Now the evil empire seems to be Amazon.
Sorry if I got semi political with those last comments. But I put my money where my mouth is, I try to shop either local, or from independent dealers. Even if it cost me a bit more.
I might be wrong, but once Amazon corners the market on retail, which they are rapidly doing, I'm willing to bet their prices will rise. I gotta hand it to Jeff Bezos. He plays the long con. Give up short term profit to corner the market. They are convenient. I had to get a prop for a photo shoot ASAP. found there, and here in 2 days.
I hope this did not come off as some sort of leftist rant. Not my intent. I do think big companies controlling markets are scary. GMO's? not so much (in terms of affecting health)
-
BTW: humans have been sort of doing this sort of thing for a long time by selective breeding of plants and animals. Yeah, they're not gene splicing, but if you want a dog, you start with the less vicious wolf. After a few generations, you've got Rover! :)
-
I agree with everything drphoto said above. It's basically how the GMOs are wielded by some companies. Breeding stock GMOs for the purpose of herbicide resistance is no different than the tradition breeding. Instead of standing over a hundred plants and spraying herbicide. They do it in a lab to see what lives. It's the same thing but more efficient from what I can see.
Although it appears companies like Monsanto use GMOs to gain a particular advantage. Which is fine from a theoretical POV. The problem is they can't regulate themselves. They talk in language of toxicology using NOEAL to promote the safety of their herbicides. (Promoting GMOs to enhance the sale to the farmer). They communicate if a substance is kept under the NOAEL , it's safe. It doesn't have to be GMO either.
The problem I see with this. (I suspect I am correct). The increased mobilization of Glysophate by farmers spraying herbicide makes me doubt - we are anywhere near - under a safe exposure. How do we know? The only people who are doing this unbiased are the Europeans. They claim it's in their urine.
Knowing the past practices of Monsanto I can't believe a word they say. I live in a farming community. There is canola growing everywhere in the city from drift. I would have canola growing in m back yard if I didn't cut my grass. Farmers are right next to the city spraying that crap like it is going out of style. How would I ever know the levels of Glysophate in my body? I can't and will never know.
This is what I am saying. Monsanto plays the big safety speech. Maintaining the safe exposure of Glysophate. Knowing full well there is no way. There is fricken NO- way. Not a chance in hell that any one can measure the amount of Glysophate in their body.
Having to trust a company like Monsanto is fucked-up. It's a complete failure of our government in regulating a toxic substance.
-
But I seriously doubt GMO foods will unleash some sort of disease or other direct health issue.
GMO's? not so much (in terms of affecting health)
The animals are suffering from GMO's.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Yes_%E2%80%93_Animals_Suffer_from_Genetically_Modified_Foods,_Says_Primatologist_Jane_Goodall/45918/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://naturalsociety.com/former-epa-scientist-speaks-out-against-gmos/
-
It's amazing how stubborn some people are. You'd think after the Agent Orange episode people would smarten up. How can you trust those people. Corporations are people, you know.
Doc
-
Breeding stock GMOs for the purpose of herbicide resistance is no different than the tradition breeding. Instead of standing over a hundred plants and spraying herbicide. They do it in a lab to see what lives. It's the same thing but more efficient from what I can see.
This misunderstanding is a huge issue, GM is not breeding. There's a good reason why all species can't interbreed, think about it. We are combining genetics that could never be combined through breeding which produces results that can't be fully understood. It's a huge, massive difference vs combing genetics through breeding, which can and does happen naturally.
For example, cabbage that produces scorpion poison, a plant/insect hybrid... what could possible go wrong, lol... :)
-
Dave, I once saw some racist idiot on TV condemning interracial marriage saying you don't see red birds mate with blue one, and I thought
....well that's because they're different species you moron!
sorry if again political.
I think the future of medicine will be via genetic manipulation and nano tech. Remember, any cancer is caused by a genetic anomoly. Once that day arrives we can end what is the barbaric practice of chemo. (I also have a background in clinical pharmacy.....weird careers I know, because my main business is commercial photography.)
cheers to all!
-
Dave, I once saw some racist idiot on TV condemning interracial marriage saying you don't see red birds mate with blue one, and I thought
....well that's because they're different species you moron!
sorry if again political.
I think the future of medicine will be via genetic manipulation and nano tech. Remember, any cancer is caused by a genetic anomoly. Once that day arrives we can end what is the barbaric practice of chemo. (I also have a background in clinical pharmacy.....weird careers I know, because my main business is commercial photography.)
cheers to all!
I agree, there is a future and very useful things will result from genetic manipulation and nano tech, but I'm not convinced GMO crops are necessary... instead local and organic food production should be encouraged. The total and complete dependency on fossil fuels to produce and transport our food supply is a problem that GMO won't solve, it takes us in exactly the wrong direction. The thought we NEED GMO to feed the world is misguided and simply propaganda.
-
Dave, once again, I agree with you. But as stated, MAYBE GMO's can have some benefit too. Especially for 3rd world folk.
Any tech has it's good and bad side. A knife is a tool, or a weapon.
I gotta say, genetic manipulation is a pretty fascinating subject. I had a former chemistry student who went on to get a phD in biochem, specializing in genetic splicing. Cool stuff. Way over my head. I'm not that smart by any stretch. :(
-
Dave, I once saw some racist idiot on TV condemning interracial marriage saying you don't see red birds mate with blue one, and I thought
....well that's because they're different species you moron!
sorry if again political.
I think the future of medicine will be via genetic manipulation and nano tech. Remember, any cancer is caused by a genetic anomoly. Once that day arrives we can end what is the barbaric practice of chemo. (I also have a background in clinical pharmacy.....weird careers I know, because my main business is commercial photography.)
cheers to all!
Animals do it because they have no soul and free will, they
follow his instinct that are genetic orders of the Creator.
Human beings have a soul and free will, this gentleman said that because the human races has different levels of spiritual evolution, resulting in a more carnal person degrades the offspring of his most spiritual partner.
As is known human races are famous for their behavior, one is clearly lazy, other is intellectual, another is detail oriented and musical etc...
-
A 5 1/2 month study on pigs eating GMO feed.(short video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmM9Dnl8zmY
-
Former EPA scientist: Biotech companies encouraging pesticide treadmill
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/june-2015/former-epa-scientist-biotech-companies-encouraging-pesticide-treadmill.php
-
As is known human races are famous for their behavior, one is clearly lazy, other is intellectual, another is detail oriented and musical etc...
There is only one race; the human race.
-
amen brother
-
I agree, there is a future and very useful things will result from genetic manipulation and nano tech, but I'm not convinced GMO crops are necessary... instead local and organic food production should be encouraged. The total and complete dependency on fossil fuels to produce and transport our food supply is a problem that GMO won't solve, it takes us in exactly the wrong direction. The thought we NEED GMO to feed the world is misguided and simply propaganda.
Where do you live? I live in the heart of Minnesota. It is a "Mecca" for food and crop production. Many of my friends that I have tea with every morning are farmers. I'm going to show them this thread so they can all have a good laugh. If you think we can feed the world with organically grown crops, you are spewing propaganda. Of course, I'm sure almost all here have hardly seen a farm, let alone work on one, bale hay of participate in butchering a hog or steer.
We have 2 local vegetable farms near here. The labor force required to run a farm like this would not be possible without migrant farm workers, there is simply too much work to get it all done. Not eating meat is one's own personal choice, but the best beef cattle are raised on grass. Lots of this grass land (or pasture land) is prefect for this process. The cattle consume the grass (not in real conflict with other foods in the food chain) and we eat the cattle.
BTW, almost every food item you guys eat today is the result of hybrid manipulation. Cattle are. Tomatoes never used to have thick skin as they do now, and in the old days, had a high mortality rate getting to the market. This is in fact, gene manipulation.
-
The best cattle, lamb, etc., are produced on grass. The omega 6 to omega 3 ratio is much better, as is the amount of CLA. Cows should not be eating wheat and the other garbage they're being fed. We should also be eating tip to tail and eating brains, liver, kidney, heart, etc. I've started to do this. We've made our own tallow (from a grass fed cow) and lard (from a locally raised pig). We've ordered several locally raised pigs (including heritage breeds) and 1/2 a cow.
On the other hand, the products we're using are going places they shouldn't, like wine:
http://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-found-in-california-wines-even-wines-made-with-or-1882199552.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-found-in-california-wines-even-wines-made-with-or-1882199552.html)
I personally do not eat current wheat or any other grain, if at all possible. I will eat Einkorn wheat every once in while, and I make the bread/rolls/English muffins myself.
-
Where do you live? I live in the heart of Minnesota. It is a "Mecca" for food and crop production. Many of my friends that I have tea with every morning are farmers. I'm going to show them this thread so they can all have a good laugh. If you think we can feed the world with organically grown crops, you are spewing propaganda. Of course, I'm sure almost all here have hardly seen a farm, let alone work on one, bale hay of participate in butchering a hog or steer.
We have 2 local vegetable farms near here. The labor force required to run a farm like this would not be possible without migrant farm workers, there is simply too much work to get it all done. Not eating meat is one's own personal choice, but the best beef cattle are raised on grass. Lots of this grass land (or pasture land) is prefect for this process. The cattle consume the grass (not in real conflict with other foods in the food chain) and we eat the cattle.
BTW, almost every food item you guys eat today is the result of hybrid manipulation. Cattle are. Tomatoes never used to have thick skin as they do now, and in the old days, had a high mortality rate getting to the market. This is in fact, gene manipulation.
Many years ago I owned an organic mushroom farm, sold at farmer's markets and know lots of organic farmers. But I guess you having tea with some folks makes you an expert... enough to tell me I'm "spewing propaganda", lol. So spare me your condescension... it's not like all farmers agree on all topics anyways, they are people who have differing opinions, that's why some own organic farms and others do not.
You are correct about the requirement for increased labor, but I don't see that as a huge problem, just an adjustment.
You are also ignorant about the difference between breeding and genetic manipulation. Breeding IS NOT, in fact, genetic manipulation in the same way GMOs are created. Breeding as allowed by genetics can happen naturally, injecting scorpion genes into cabbage is something else entirely. If you can't understand the difference there I'm not sure what to say, but it seems like willful ignorance to me.
-
Hey Wayne. I grew up on a farm. Believe me I've put up plenty of hay. Back in the bad old days when it was square bales and you had to load wagon and the barn by hand. And any day you had to do it? Would always be the hottest of the year!! :lol:
Like most discussions/arguments, there are always two sides and both have their valid points.
You are correct about producing food for a planet with 7 billion people. And very few now work in ag. When I was a kid, and especially when looking at my parents generation, America was largely a rural county. Now what? Less than a few per cent are farmers?
So that's going to take mass production techniques to feed all the city folk. Not to mention the fact that food, in the US is pretty cheap. We used to spend what 20% of income on food in the 60's. It's now down to like 10%. (Assuming you don't go to fancy restaurants every night)
And even with the decline of the middle class in this country, we are still pretty rich by and large. So if there are people who can afford organic produce so be it.
But widespread use of organophosphate chemicals is undoubtably a bad thing, especially if used indiscriminately. Fertilizer runoff into water ways is a huge problem. but what are you gonna do about it? Maybe we could reduce the need for a lot of mass grown corn if we all went vegetarian. But that's just not gonna happen. and if it did? what happens to those farmers and ranchers and processors? The world is shades of grey people, there is no black and white.
Again, it's like a lot of things in the modern world where there is good and bad sides. another example: We love our cars. We love cheap gas, but we become outraged when there are oil spills. Hey.....it's gonna happen. Stuff breaks, people make mistakes. Sure it's bad, and it sucks, but what do you expect?
But local food is good too. It's hard to beat a real tomato fresh off the vine or an ear of sweet corn that has just been just picked. I always look forward to summer when I can stop by the roadside stands some of the local farmers kids set up. I live in KY. So there are still small farms nearby.
As to Viggs post:
Agree that natural grass fed beef is great at least when I ate it. What we had on farm as a kid. And I agree, that if you are going to consume animals, use the whole carcass, like they do in poorer countries. It's funny that some of the best food came out of poverty and people using the 'leftover' bits in clever ways. Like BBQ brisket. An otherwise unpalatable bit of meat rendered fantastic. BTW: I have nothing against eating meat, It's just something I choose not to do, at least for the time being. I like meat, but there is a pork processing plant just a few blocks from my studio and it kinda turned me off to it for various reasons.
Sorry if I seem to be ranting folks. Really don't mean to come off as hostile to anyone or making political statements.
-
Many years ago I owned an organic mushroom farm, sold at farmer's markets and know lots of organic farmers. But I guess you having tea with some folks makes you an expert... enough to tell me I'm "spewing propaganda", lol. So spare me your condescension... it's not like all farmers agree on all topics anyways, they are people who have differing opinions, that's why some own organic farms and others do not.
You are correct about the requirement for increased labor, but I don't see that as a huge problem, just an adjustment.
You are also ignorant about the difference between breeding and genetic manipulation. Breeding IS NOT, in fact, genetic manipulation in the same way GMOs are created. Breeding as allowed by genetics can happen naturally, injecting scorpion genes into cabbage is something else entirely. If you can't understand the difference there I'm not sure what to say, but it seems like willful ignorance to me.
Watch out who you call ignorant. I believe I didn't call you any names there, DAVE. You have no idea of my knowledge base.
Oh yeah, some of my "farmer" friends run many thousands of acres, as opposed to your "mushroom" farm. I'm probably going to listen to their wisdom.
-
Hey Wayne. I grew up on a farm. Believe me I've put up plenty of hay. Back in the bad old days when it was square bales and you had to load wagon and the barn by hand. And any day you had to do it? Would always be the hottest of the year!! :lol:
Like most discussions/arguments, there are always two sides and both have their valid points.
You are correct about producing food for a planet with 7 billion people. And very few now work in ag. When I was a kid, and especially when looking at my parents generation, America was largely a rural county. Now what? Less than a few per cent are farmers?
So that's going to take mass production techniques to feed all the city folk. Not to mention the fact that food, in the US is pretty cheap. We used to spend what 20% of income on food in the 60's. It's now down to like 10%. (Assuming you don't go to fancy restaurants every night)
And even with the decline of the middle class in this country, we are still pretty rich by and large. So if there are people who can afford organic produce so be it.
But widespread use of organophosphate chemicals is undoubtably a bad thing, especially if used indiscriminately. Fertilizer runoff into water ways is a huge problem. but what are you gonna do about it? Maybe we could reduce the need for a lot of mass grown corn if we all went vegetarian. But that's just not gonna happen. and if it did? what happens to those farmers and ranchers and processors? The world is shades of grey people, there is no black and white.
Again, it's like a lot of things in the modern world where there is good and bad sides. another example: We love our cars. We love cheap gas, but we become outraged when there are oil spills. Hey.....it's gonna happen. Stuff breaks, people make mistakes. Sure it's bad, and it sucks, but what do you expect?
But local food is good too. It's hard to beat a real tomato fresh off the vine or an ear of sweet corn that has just been just picked. I always look forward to summer when I can stop by the roadside stands some of the local farmers kids set up. I live in KY. So there are still small farms nearby.
As to Viggs post:
Agree that natural grass fed beef is great at least when I ate it. What we had on farm as a kid. And I agree, that if you are going to consume animals, use the whole carcass, like they do in poorer countries. It's funny that some of the best food came out of poverty and people using the 'leftover' bits in clever ways. Like BBQ brisket. An otherwise unpalatable bit of meat rendered fantastic. BTW: I have nothing against eating meat, It's just something I choose not to do, at least for the time being. I like meat, but there is a pork processing plant just a few blocks from my studio and it kinda turned me off to it for various reasons.
Sorry if I seem to be ranting folks. Really don't mean to come off as hostile to anyone or making political statements.
Yes, I have thrown my share of hay bales and picked my share of rocks, too. I'm certainly not saying that present day farming doesn't have its problems, but I certainly understand their task at hand, and I'm not going to bad mouth them as some here have done.
They have to use the tools that are available to them at the time, and I think they do a pretty good job. Food prices here are OK, but they are rising (due to other factors).
-
Cool, I think the point of my rambling post above, is the world is a complicated place. And there are unfortunately few simple answers to many problems.
And selective breeding IS in a sense, genetic manipulation. Ok maybe not as radical as introducing genes from one organism into another.
But once again, these things are tools, and can be used for good or bad.
Lets say you found the best tasting, but longest lasting tomato ever. By selective breeding it could take many years to isolate But what if you isolated the genes responsible for those good traits and could splice? and do it in a short period of time?. I think that's a lot different than producing a "toxic killer tomato".
And if one company held the patent on the ultimate tomato? I'd be up against my own argument from earlier. See.....complicated. :duh:
-
Watch out who you call ignorant. I believe I didn't call you any names there, DAVE. You have no idea of my knowledge base.
Saying you're ignorant of the differences between breeding and genetic modification is not calling you names.
-
Where do you live? I live in the heart of Minnesota. It is a "Mecca" for food and crop production. Many of my friends that I have tea with every morning are farmers. I'm going to show them this thread so they can all have a good laugh. If you think we can feed the world with organically grown crops, you are spewing propaganda. Of course, I'm sure almost all here have hardly seen a farm, let alone work on one, bale hay of participate in butchering a hog or steer.
We have 2 local vegetable farms near here. The labor force required to run a farm like this would not be possible without migrant farm workers, there is simply too much work to get it all done. Not eating meat is one's own personal choice, but the best beef cattle are raised on grass. Lots of this grass land (or pasture land) is prefect for this process. The cattle consume the grass (not in real conflict with other foods in the food chain) and we eat the cattle.
BTW, almost every food item you guys eat today is the result of hybrid manipulation. Cattle are. Tomatoes never used to have thick skin as they do now, and in the old days, had a high mortality rate getting to the market. This is in fact, gene manipulation.
So when you are with your farmer friends, sipping the tea contemplating world health and GMOs :lol:. You do realize there are tons of labour in third world countries? You do not need GMOs. GMOs ain't feeding shit. The technology might be there but it's not going to get used because 3rd world countries can't pay the "Man".
The only people getting fed are the ones who can pay for it. GMOs will only make it cheaper and more profitable for the producer. So us fat fucks from North America can keep stuffing the feed hole.
You are living in completely different fantasy world if you think GMOs are going to help feed people that need it.
-
Werd,
Again what I said is MAYBE GMO's can help the third world if they can say produce a rice that contains all essential vitamins or crops that can better withstand the harsh conditions of say sub Saharan Africa.
Whether they are COMPLETELY safe? who knows? I'm not a geneticist. But is any tech completely safe? Hell driving your car to work maybe the one of the most dangerous things you do daily.
I'm not arguing for them.....or against.
And once again, all sides have valid points to make. Yes you too are correct. A lot of places in the third world certainly have no shortage of labor. Hell that's why we North Americans as you say, build factories in them. To take advantage of that. So maybe a lot of them could also work on farms. But something is clearly wrong, as there a lot of hungry people in the world.
True, much of it is due to local politics. Dictators who control everything for there own benefit, or incite civil wars etc. But that opens up another divisive
discussion.
Can will all just chill out a bit?? 8)
-
Saying you're ignorant of the differences between breeding and genetic modification is not calling you names.
We all know the differences between hybrid and genetic fiddling. How's that mushroom farm doing now?
Werd,
Again what I said is MAYBE GMO's can help the third world if they can say produce a rice that contains all essential vitamins or crops that can better withstand the harsh conditions of say sub Saharan Africa.
Whether they are COMPLETELY safe? who knows? I'm not a geneticist. But is any tech completely safe? Hell driving your car to work maybe the one of the most dangerous things you do daily.
I'm not arguing for them.....or against.
And once again, all sides have valid points to make. Yes you too are correct. A lot of places in the third world certainly have no shortage of labor. Hell that's why we North Americans as you say, build factories in them. To take advantage of that. So maybe a lot of them could also work on farms. But something is clearly wrong, as there a lot of hungry people in the world.
True, much of it is due to local politics. Dictators who control everything for there own benefit, or incite civil wars etc. But that opens up another divisive
discussion.
Can will all just chill out a bit?? 8)
Corn crops here are used several fold. First some of it goes into ethanol production. Some of it is turned into silage (feed), some of it is picked and end up in processed foods, some of it ends up being made into sugar, some of it ends up as animal foods. The sweet corn part ends up as sweet corn we see in the grocery stores, some it canned at several local canning operations (canned whole corn, creamed corn), and some corn gets exported. It a pretty diverse raw material. The same types of things happen to soybeans.
-
I truly apologize to all if I some how turned this into a political debate. That was not my intent
I like good intellectual discourse. But this seems to have taken a bit of an ugly turn.
I will refrain from posting here again.
cheers to all.
-
The organic industry is breaking growth records in 2016
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/600448233210126353
Here in Missouri, farmer markets are springing up everywhere, even in the smallest towns.
Price?
Store-cucumbers and zucchii-99 cents each
Farmers markets-2/$1 and 3/$1
Sorry Monsanto: Organic Food Smashed Records Last Year With Over $35 Billion In Sales
http://www.healthynaturalcures.org/sorry-monsanto-organic-food-smashed-records-last-year-35-billion-sales/
-
That's what I lik to see - read ! :thumb:
'' Sorry Monsanto: Organic Food Smashed Records Last Year With Over $35 Billion In Sales ''
-
Werd,
Again what I said is MAYBE GMO's can help the third world if they can say produce a rice that contains all essential vitamins or crops that can better withstand the harsh conditions of say sub Saharan Africa.
Whether they are COMPLETELY safe? who knows? I'm not a geneticist. But is any tech completely safe? Hell driving your car to work maybe the one of the most dangerous things you do daily.
I'm not arguing for them.....or against.
And once again, all sides have valid points to make. Yes you too are correct. A lot of places in the third world certainly have no shortage of labor. Hell that's why we North Americans as you say, build factories in them. To take advantage of that. So maybe a lot of them could also work on farms. But something is clearly wrong, as there a lot of hungry people in the world.
True, much of it is due to local politics. Dictators who control everything for there own benefit, or incite civil wars etc. But that opens up another divisive
discussion.
Can will all just chill out a bit?? 8)
Apparently rice is the worse crop to be concentrating on in much of Asia. (you would know more about this) The land used to grow rice is toxic from industry. From what I am reading, rice is about the worst crop since it does nothing for ridding the toxin. Other crops that don't sit in water are better suited for that. Instead of moving people away from rice and providing nutrition with other plants they are pushing this rice. Why? I doubt very much it's to create nutrients for the population. Its far more likely its to maintain an industry of rice export. I know that sounds cynical and I hope the rice thing works out on un toxic land.
Ignoring the reality of "why" is toxic from a propaganda POV. Since it allows these multinationals to gain applause when no applause is warranted. They are only looking after their own interests. So happens in this case, it allows them to possibly repair a nutritional issue.
-
We all know the differences between hybrid and genetic fiddling. How's that mushroom farm doing now?
If you had any clue you wouldn't be so quick to denigrate my mushroom farm, it's a very profitable business. It did great and made good money, but I moved on as I decided I didn't want to do it anymore. Over time I got allergic to spores and the mushrooms need to be picked twice a day. Later I had a successful welding and auto shop, then I decided I didn't want to do that either so I got an engineering degree and worked for Vestas desiging a huge factory, where I made numerous huge improvements to the assembly process that were implemented internationally. Both the management team and the mechanical designers that worked for me said I was the most technically gifted engineer they had ever worked with. So far I'm very happy doing what I do now, I own my own business and life is grand. :thumb:
-
I truly apologize to all if I some how turned this into a political debate. That was not my intent
I like good intellectual discourse. But this seems to have taken a bit of an ugly turn.
I will refrain from posting here again.
cheers to all.
Me too, I'm out.
-
The organic industry is breaking growth records in 2016
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/600448233210126353
Here in Missouri, farmer markets are springing up everywhere, even in the smallest towns.
Price?
Store-cucumbers and zucchii-99 cents each
Farmers markets-2/$1 and 3/$1
Sorry Monsanto: Organic Food Smashed Records Last Year With Over $35 Billion In Sales
http://www.healthynaturalcures.org/sorry-monsanto-organic-food-smashed-records-last-year-35-billion-sales/
Mama Monsanto loves their GMO racket. The whole world is run on fees and services charges on basically doing nothing. Like bank fees or cancellation fees. Monsanto business model is the same thing. They are using GMOs to create a system where they can charge for basically nothing after selling the seed and Herbicide.
They want you sign a contract (fees) then they want in on the harvest ( more fees). All because they have sold this illusion that their tech is worth it.
Sounds like that DRM thing (MQA) Meridian is trying to push. :rules: :thumbdown:
Or you can do the Generic stuff and ignore Monsanto. :thumb:
-
Mama Monsanto loves their GMO racket. The whole world is run on fees and services charges on basically doing nothing. Like bank fees or cancellation fees. Monsanto business model is the same thing. They are using GMOs to create a system where they can charge for basically nothing after selling the seed and Herbicide.
They want you sign a contract (fees) then they want in on the harvest ( more fees). All because they have sold this illusion that their tech is worth it.
Sounds like that DRM thing (MQA) Meridian is trying to push. :rules: :thumbdown:
Or you can do the Generic stuff and ignore Monsanto. :thumb:
You got it right! Just follow the money and you can see how international capitalism, in their individual sectors, trends towards monopoly/oligopoly.
-
In Pictures: The Mind-Numbingly Simple Labels Monsanto and Big Food Paid Over $100 Million to Stop
http://althealthworks.com/10500/in-pictures-these-are-mind-numbingly-simple-labels-monsanto-et-al-spent-hundreds-of-millions-to-stop/
-
MonsantoLeaks: Emails Expose Company’s Shocking Connection to Séralini (GMO) Study Retraction
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/monsantoleaks-emails-reveal-role-companys-shocking-role-in-seralini-study-retraction/
-
Lawsuits mounting against MONSANTO for their cancer-causing herbicide ROUNDUP. ...But don't worry, you can trust them on GMO's.
http://madisonrecord.com/stories/510974427-lawsuits-mounting-against-monsanto-over-alleged-cancer-causing-ingredients-in-roundup
-
Determined Argentina Protesters Force Monsanto to Tear Down Unwanted GMO Seed Plant
http://sustainablepulse.com/2016/08/07/local-residents-force-monsanto-to-tear-down-gmo-seed-plant-in-argentina/#.V74FuZgrI2w
-
Argentina and Uruguay has better meat than brazil.
-
400 Companies That DO NOT Use GMOs in Their Products
http://www.realfarmacy.com/400-companies-no-gmos/
-
I only saw one product that I know and use and it's :
Better Stevia by Now.
All those companies listed are small companies and that's normal,
large corporations more or less care about bio stuff,
they are concerned about money for their share holders.
Guy 13
on planet Vietnam.
-
Just an FYI on this. Since we track companies like this who impact our market segments I immediately sent it along to my comrades in arms and remembered this discussion:
Bayer, Monsanto Sign Merger Agreement Worth $66B, Now the Tough Part: Regulators
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/09/13/bayer-monsanto-sign-merger-agreement-worth-66b-now-tough-part-regulators.html
-
THE IMPACT OF GMOS
http://futurism.com/researchers-just-released-the-longest-gmo-study-ever-heres-what-they-found/