GMO Labeling and the continued Battle [Archive]

pgardn

12-06-2013, 11:02 AM

My dear corporate shill, Monsanto invented GM shit to sell Roundup and enslave farmers to the Monsanto's seed monopoly and chemicals.

radiated food and micro-wave food is shit, with the energy destroying much of the nutritional value.

Again, radiated food exists because BigFood/BigAg don't want to spend the money to keep their food safe to eat without radiation. BigFood/BigA don't GAF about the quality of their shit, as long as they don't get sued.

You eat irradiated food you fool. Almost anything with spices is irradiated. Describe to me how the nutritional value of irradiated food is ruined considering spoilage does much more damage to nutritional value. Of course it's cheaper, you can't ship all produce and not have it degrade! You want your produce by Private Jet? You have that kind of money? You have not a clue as to what you write about.

Tell me how Golden Rice is bad for people, please tell me as it is a GM food crop? Look it up and explain why it is actually a huge nutritional booster for 3rd world countries that subsist mostly on rice. You pretend like you love humanity (except Republicans) but you have not a clue about almost anything that takes a bit of science knowledge to understand.

You are a drunken Democratic robot repeating the same old tired lines. You refuse to think for yourself, you can't look at problems on a case by case basis, it's to difficult as it might defy your dilapidated dogma. You are the other face of m>s.

boutons_deux

03-09-2014, 11:04 AM

DUNCANownsKOBE

03-09-2014, 11:45 AM

boutons, have you read about Monsanto's GMO that makes it so crops are more tolerant of weed killer (i.e. round-up), thus can absorb more of it, meaning there's actually round-up in our food :lol

pgardn

03-09-2014, 11:46 AM

"Tell me how GoldenRice is bad for people,"

Tell us why Golden Rice really solves Vit A deficiency. Syngenta is pushing hard for GR licensing, profits, NOT to help Vit A deficient children.

A paper not getting suckered by GR propaganda:

http://www.foodwatch.org/uploads/media/golden_lies_golden_rice_project_2012_01.pdf

questions raised:

how much Vit A is really GR?

How stable is Vit A in GR in realistic storage and preparation?

What percentage of whatever amount of Vit A in GR is actually bioavailable?

Is GR Vit A the best way to solve Vit A deficiency? What about much cheaper, much higher Vit A content (non-GMO) Vit A supplements?

Oh yeah, just load up a bunch of supplements on a truck and ship it over. Tell the people to eat the pills, it's easy...

See again you don't go deep enough. I told you to read about the entire story. One of the problems is also getting people to eat yellow rice. They don't like the yellow color.

But does any of this make taking a GM crop and giving it a try wrong because, after all, the entirety of GM foods are corporate madness?

Again, like always, you totally dismiss ideas because they don't fit your ideology. You and Joseph Stalin would be great together. His advisor on agriculture told him that Mendals/Darwin's ideas were a western crock of shit. They had huge failure in wheat crops that added to Stalin's legacy of starving people.

Buddy up with a pure believer.

Wild Cobra

03-09-2014, 11:48 AM

DUNCANownsKOBE

03-09-2014, 11:50 AM

I'm pretty sure Boutons has reminded you of that on several occasions.

Where has he done that?

Wild Cobra

03-09-2014, 11:54 AM

Where has he done that?
I don't know where off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure he has.

DUNCANownsKOBE

03-09-2014, 11:57 AM

I don't know where off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure he has.

So do you have an opinion on the matter? How do you feel about eating round-up?

Wild Cobra

03-09-2014, 12:01 PM

So do you have an opinion on the matter? How do you feel about eating round-up?
I don't let it worry me. Now I do shop at the growers market when I want fresh fruits and vegetables, but when I buy bread or packaged goods, I simply don't think it's a big deal. I'm just pointing out that the Monsanto/Roundup issue is not new at all. It is years old, and almost certain Boutons has brought it up several times.

boutons_deux

03-09-2014, 12:05 PM

Where has he done that?

I assume, obviously without justification seeing the ignorance here, that anybody in the GMO discussion knows the GMO products are only for the profits of the GMO corps, with nothing but detriment to the environment and humans.

DUNCANownsKOBE

03-09-2014, 12:06 PM

I don't let it worry me. Now I do shop at the growers market when I want fresh fruits and vegetables, but when I buy bread or packaged goods, I simply don't think it's a big deal. I'm just pointing out that the Monsanto/Roundup issue is not new at all. It is years old, and almost certain Boutons has brought it up several times.

Same. I don't eat that much bread/packaged goods but when I do I'm not thinking about organic/health/etc. and I don't think it matters. I'm trying to stay away from gluten as much as possible.

And I honestly didn't read about the round-up thing until recently.

pgardn

03-09-2014, 12:08 PM

boutons, have you read about Monsanto's GMO that makes it so crops are more tolerant of weed killer (i.e. round-up), thus can absorb more of it, meaning there's actually round-up in our food :lol

Round up is very unstable. Has about a 24 hr period where it actually stays viable.

So Monsanto has invented a crop that stores and increases the life of a chemical that is produced to break down?

Link please.

DUNCANownsKOBE

03-09-2014, 12:14 PM

Wild Cobra

03-09-2014, 12:16 PM

Duncan;

Are you joining the Bouton's fan club?

pgardn

03-09-2014, 12:22 PM

So you're OK with eating round-up :lmao

Its not round up after it's broken down into inert products.
Say, have you heard of chemistry and chemical changes?

Link please.

boutons_deux

03-09-2014, 12:23 PM

Round up is very unstable. Has about a 24 hr period where it actually stays viable.

So Monsanto has invented a crop that stores and increases the life of a chemical that is produced to break down?

Link please.

glyphosate has been found to perist for weeks, so far.

"Effects on fish and amphibians[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyphosate&action=edit&section=21)]

Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-epa_reds-19) However, low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the US and in Europe.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-autogenerated3-86)

A 2003 study of various formulations of glyphosate found that "risk assessments based on estimated and measured concentrations of glyphosate that would result from its use for the control of undesirable plants in wetlands and over-water situations showed that the risk to aquatic organisms is negligible or small at application rates less than 4 kg/ha and only slightly greater at application rates of 8 kg/ha.".[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Solomon-87) A more recent (2013) meta-analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis) also reviewed the available data related to potential impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. According to the authors, because little is known about environmental concentrations of glyphosate in amphibian habitats and virtually nothing is known about environmental concentrations of the substances added to the herbicide formulations, if and how glyphosate-based herbicides contribute to amphibian decline is not yet answerable due to missing data on how natural populations are affected. They concluded that the impact on amphibians depends on the herbicide formulation with different sensitivity of taxa and life stages while effects on development of larvae are seen as the most sensitive endpoints to study. The authors recommend "better monitoring of both amphibian populations and contamination of habitats with glyphosate-based herbicides, not just glyphosate," and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-88)

Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Giesy2000-44)[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-pmid20112104-89)[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Relyea-90)[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-pmid17069392-91) Glyphosate formulations may contain a number of so-called ‘inert’ ingredients or adjuvants, most of which are not publicly known as in many countries the law does not require that they be revealed.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-autogenerated3-86)

A study published in 2010 proposed commercial glyphosate can cause neural defects and craniofacial malformations in African clawed frogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_clawed_frog) (Xenopus laevis). The experiments used frog embryos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryos) that were incubated with 1:5000 dilutions of a commercial glyphosate solution. The frog embryos suffered diminution of body size, alterations of brain morphology, reduction of the eyes, alterations of the branchial arches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchial_arches) and otic placodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otic_placode), alterations of the neural plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_plate), and other abnormalities of the nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system). The authors suggested glyphosate itself was responsible for the observed results because injection of pure glyphosate produced similar results in a chicken model.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-AndresCarrasco-92)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Like so many other toxic mega-corps, Monsanto has corrupted, compromised govt regulators, so it's essentially untouchable, beyond the reach of the law, while being extremely aggressive in suing farmers for "incidental/accidental" contamination.

Wild Cobra

03-09-2014, 12:25 PM

I knew B-Shit had the goods...

pgardn

03-09-2014, 12:39 PM

glyphosate has been found to perist for weeks, so far.

"Effects on fish and amphibians[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glyphosate&action=edit&section=21)]

Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet persistence of over a year have been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-epa_reds-19) However, low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the US and in Europe.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-autogenerated3-86)

A 2003 study of various formulations of glyphosate found that "risk assessments based on estimated and measured concentrations of glyphosate that would result from its use for the control of undesirable plants in wetlands and over-water situations showed that the risk to aquatic organisms is negligible or small at application rates less than 4 kg/ha and only slightly greater at application rates of 8 kg/ha.".[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Solomon-87) A more recent (2013) meta-analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis) also reviewed the available data related to potential impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. According to the authors, because little is known about environmental concentrations of glyphosate in amphibian habitats and virtually nothing is known about environmental concentrations of the substances added to the herbicide formulations, if and how glyphosate-based herbicides contribute to amphibian decline is not yet answerable due to missing data on how natural populations are affected. They concluded that the impact on amphibians depends on the herbicide formulation with different sensitivity of taxa and life stages while effects on development of larvae are seen as the most sensitive endpoints to study. The authors recommend "better monitoring of both amphibian populations and contamination of habitats with glyphosate-based herbicides, not just glyphosate," and suggest including amphibians in standardized test batteries.[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-88)

Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Giesy2000-44)[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-pmid20112104-89)[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-Relyea-90)[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-pmid17069392-91) Glyphosate formulations may contain a number of so-called ‘inert’ ingredients or adjuvants, most of which are not publicly known as in many countries the law does not require that they be revealed.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-autogenerated3-86)

A study published in 2010 proposed commercial glyphosate can cause neural defects and craniofacial malformations in African clawed frogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_clawed_frog) (Xenopus laevis). The experiments used frog embryos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryos) that were incubated with 1:5000 dilutions of a commercial glyphosate solution. The frog embryos suffered diminution of body size, alterations of brain morphology, reduction of the eyes, alterations of the branchial arches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchial_arches) and otic placodes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otic_placode), alterations of the neural plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_plate), and other abnormalities of the nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system). The authors suggested glyphosate itself was responsible for the observed results because injection of pure glyphosate produced similar results in a chicken model.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#cite_note-AndresCarrasco-92)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Like so many other toxic mega-corps, Monsanto has corrupted, compromised govt regulators, so it's essentially untouchable, beyond the reach of the law, while being extremely aggressive in suing farmers for "incidental/accidental" contamination.

now we are rolling...

Good stuff. Light and heat break it down very quickly.
But if you use it in colder places and dark (found in lake sediments) it lasts.
Roundup is very ineffective at killing pest plants that grow slowly associated with cold areas.

I have used the stuff at the prescribed concentrations and it will not kill weeds after two days if left in the dark.
If you leave it outside, one day, it's very ineffective. But I use it only on fast growing weeds and that means heat and light. Never use it on winter stuff, useless.

None-the-less, I learned something.

Still does not damn Every GM crop. This is where you, Boots, disregard good science. But I found another article that is based on using it at concentrations that are too high.

boutons_deux

03-09-2014, 12:52 PM

Still does not damn Every GM crop. This is where you, Boots, disregard good science. But I found another article that is based on using it at concentrations that are too high.

Every single GM crop is not to improve human and environmental health, both of which are almost certainly damaged by GM products, but to increase corporate profits.

the "Golden Lies" document above should destroy your love for Golden Rice, but probably won't.

pgardn

03-09-2014, 01:06 PM

Every single GM crop is not to improve human and environmental health, both of which are almost certainly damaged by GM products, but to increase corporate profits.

the "Golden Lies" document above should destroy your love for Golden Rice, but probably won't.

Of course it won't and neither should if for you.
Read your own article. They are all good questions about golden rice. But DO NOT disqualify it.
So there is no reason we should not go ahead and answer the questions.
But my info, on the difficulty of getting people to eat yellow colored rice, is the most persuasive.
I gave info identifying a problem for what I see as a promising crop that will have cultural difficulties.

This is an act that people who want good answers do, something that you can't fathom.

And I never stated every single GM crop was good. You stated that every GM crop was bad. I think GM food could have great promise. It's a possible step up from selective breeding which has also been rejected on grounds it could be harmful. The breeding of fighting animals that can also tear up people is not so great in many circumstances.

The selective breeding of animals that will suffer horrible skeletal abnormalities for the sake of some dog addict that likes the look is not good. Yet we have selectively bred food crops that give larger fruit and more nutritious. You can't buy a food crop in the US that has not been selectively bred. Dogs that are good at smelling have now helped us sniff out bombs and people under rubble. But fuck it, some company might make a profit. Blinded by your hate for any big company.

sickdsm

03-19-2014, 08:28 AM

I see boutons is still "educating" everyone on roundup.

Name me another weed killer that's been as effective, within similar costs, and better for the environment?

Compare it with Atrazine.

Kind of a mute point anyway being as a larger percent of the horrible atrocities of runoff actually occur from lawns anyway.

Where is the outrage of residential lawncare? Marijuanna production in california?

boutons_deux

03-19-2014, 08:32 AM

sickdsm

03-19-2014, 09:46 AM

Name me a better method. You can't.

Non- GMO is not neccesary better for tge environment or healthier. It's certainly not viable nor a long term answer besides a niche market.

pgardn

03-19-2014, 09:57 AM

roundup is great because atrazine is so bad! :lol

Roundup if used properly is a well thought out idea, except that it can be easily misused. This is a problem. No way they have levels build up in bottom sediments like given in Boots article unless it's used improperly, and it appears like its easy to do.

Also it of course selects for weeds that can deal with, but this is expected, natural selection moves forward.

Winehole23

03-19-2014, 09:59 AM

Name me a better method. You can't.

Non- GMO is not neccesary better for tge environment or healthier. It's certainly not viable nor a long term answer besides a niche market.welcome back to politics, cooler girl. you can't possibly back up your own claims. your cooler talk is way too broad.

wonder how we ever survived so long as a civilization without non-GMOs. does all of human history prior to the late 20th century count as a niche market?

sickdsm

03-19-2014, 10:21 AM

welcome back to politics, cooler girl. you can't possibly back up your own claims. your cooler talk is way too broad.

wonder how we ever survived so long as a civilization without non-GMOs. does all of human history prior to the late 20th century count as a niche market?

Can you check world population and get back to me? Thanks.

What about in 20 years?

sickdsm

03-19-2014, 10:22 AM

The reason I brought up Atrazine is bc it's the chem of choice for non gmo corn.

Know your side of your argument before you mock it!

Winehole23

03-19-2014, 10:43 AM

Can you check world population and get back to me? Thanks.

What about in 20 years?that's not a reply to me and it isn't even a claim on your own part. just more cooler girl type hand-waving.

Winehole23

03-19-2014, 10:44 AM

btw, I don't take a side in this fight. but I am making fun of your overbroad cooler talk.

Winehole23

03-19-2014, 10:48 AM

what's your handwaving about world population all about?

last population thread posted here suggested the problem related to worth population in the next hundred years or so isn't overpopulation, but slower population growth.

boutons_deux

03-19-2014, 11:14 AM

Roundup if used properly is a well thought out idea, except that it can be easily misused. This is a problem. No way they have levels build up in bottom sediments like given in Boots article unless it's used improperly, and it appears like its easy to do.

Also it of course selects for weeds that can deal with, but this is expected, natural selection moves forward.

"natural"!! :lol

Just read yesterday a corn borer worm that roundup was supposed to stop now happily chows down on roundup/GM corn

As insects, weeds, fungus develop resistance to x-icides, inevitably, the nastier shit has to be dumped on your food (I don't eat corn, soy, or wheat)

Also read that Monsanto wants to change the GM seeds to "stack" in more, different poisons, including a component of agent orange which is still ravaging and killing VN vets and VN people today.

GM garbage and Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, etc shit is meant to increase corporate profits by enslaving agriculture to its products.

They aren't meant to improve the nutritional value to consumers, who are distant second thought, and probably ignored completely by the corps.

Corn as the American aboriginals bred and consumed was multi-variety, multi-colored, MUCH more nutritious than the corporate, homogenized, synthetic mono-crop they try to feed us now.

sickdsm

03-19-2014, 11:19 AM

Obviously I don't fit in with your clique here. Why would I?

The population issue is related to your comment about we do just fine without GMO prior to this. I told you to look up pop numbers so you can comprehend what the world fed years ago versus now.

I love how you say a thread "suggested" an answer.

So someone suggesting an idea is now a legitimate rebuttal? I would assume eventually the world will not breed so fast, after all, resources will be scarce. Like food.

I grow both gmo and non gmo. There isn't enough demand yet for a lot of on gmo. Some times there is no premium. Most people aren't willing to pay more.

baseline bum

03-19-2014, 11:55 AM

LOL at buying organics. Pay twice as much for shit sprayed with different pesticides.

boutons_deux

03-19-2014, 12:27 PM

LOL at buying organics. Pay twice as much for shit sprayed with different pesticides.

link?

the "natural" and "organic" labels have certainly been degraded, tainted by corporate lobbying, so in order not to get suckered by corporate lies, you have to shop very carefully.

Winehole23

03-20-2014, 12:05 PM

Obviously I don't fit in with your clique here. Why would I?

The population issue is related to your comment about we do just fine without GMO prior to this. I told you to look up pop numbers so you can comprehend what the world fed years ago versus now. what are the numbers and what do they show? and what's the twenty year projection? in short, come to the point intstead of just pointing mutely at what you mean to say.

I love how you say a thread "suggested" an answer.

So someone suggesting an idea is now a legitimate rebuttal?when the point replied to is elliptical, as yours was, I think it's fair to throw out a random topical point as a conversational pivot. so yes, suggesting something -- anything really -- concrete is a valid rebuttal to hand waving.

I would assume eventually the world will not breed so fast, after all, resources will be scarce. Like food. finally, a concrete claim. we need GMOs due to declining productivity, due to slower population growth. correct?

Winehole23

03-20-2014, 12:06 PM

jeez. getting people to say what they mean is like pulling teeth sometimes.

sickdsm

03-20-2014, 04:16 PM

boutons_deux

03-20-2014, 04:24 PM

How hard is it to understand about the population explosion? Do a little research. You seem to anticipate being able to feed more people with less technology and a shrinking water supply.

Care to clue the rest of us in on that?

Just an FYI, productivity has not declined. If you limit the technology available, then it should decrease.

Do you care to provide some concrete claims on the decline of productivity?

bullshit

Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40% Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf

All that excess food is purchased, enriching BigFood, and shitcanned.

GMO doesn't really increase crop yield, so it's not the answer to a hungry planet.

The solution is less mammal meat, less chicken, and all the Bs of tons of water and crops and chemicals that are used to produce them, and better, more efficient overall management of food production.

Winehole23

03-20-2014, 10:50 PM

How hard is it to understand about the population explosion? Do a little research. You seem to anticipate being able to feed more people with less technology and a shrinking water supply.

Care to clue the rest of us in on that?I have no idea how agricultural productivity is related to "population explosion" and GMOs, but you seem to have determinate ideas about it. seems it's on you to substantiate the population explosion and the necessity of GMOs.

Just an FYI, productivity has not declined. If you limit the technology available, then it should decrease.

Do you care to provide some concrete claims on the decline of productivity?I was trying to guess at what you meant, not making my own claims. stating your own ideas clearly and offering some support for them might be a nice start. you haven't done that.

pgardn

03-21-2014, 09:22 AM

"natural"!! :lol

Just read yesterday a corn borer worm that roundup was supposed to stop now happily chows down on roundup/GM corn

As insects, weeds, fungus develop resistance to x-icides, inevitably, the nastier shit has to be dumped on your food (I don't eat corn, soy, or wheat)

Also read that Monsanto wants to change the GM seeds to "stack" in more, different poisons, including a component of agent orange which is still ravaging and killing VN vets and VN people today.

GM garbage and Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, etc shit is meant to increase corporate profits by enslaving agriculture to its products.

They aren't meant to improve the nutritional value to consumers, who are distant second thought, and probably ignored completely by the corps.

Corn as the American aboriginals bred and consumed was multi-variety, multi-colored, MUCH more nutritious than the corporate, homogenized, synthetic mono-crop they try to feed us now.

Did you notice the italics on natural Boots? Say no...

Jesus you are totally stuck. So you are telling me if there was a GM crop you could grow in salty soil where NONE could be grown before, you would not use it. Even in a place people where people were severely malnourished?

This is Boots the humanitarian.
HE does not like GM crops in his grocery store.
Does Boots realize that not everyone walks through
a produce section casually selecting their Organics...

Again a broad statement, ALL GM crops are bad, they are funded by Corporations, gets in the way of common sense.
You see GM, and it reflexively scares the hell out of you.
Golden Rice.... Run... And that's just one.

pgardn

03-21-2014, 09:28 AM

And boots, the worm, that's how it works with so many crops, not just GM.

You should be far more concerned with invasive species carried on Cargo ships owned by...

BIG CORPORATIONS, da duhhhhh.

boutons_deux

03-21-2014, 09:30 AM

The Great Boutons has butt-hurt pgardn into babbling, drooling insanity :lol

pgardn

03-21-2014, 09:35 AM

The Great Boutons has butt-hurt pgardn into babbling, drooling insanity :lol

Now to the emoticons and bail on the subject at hand.

I understand.

Just in case you care:
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gm-crops-developing-countries/gm-crops-developing-countries-possible-benefits-gm-crops-developing-co

boutons_deux

03-21-2014, 04:59 PM

Now to the emoticons and bail on the subject at hand.

I understand.

Just in case you care:
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gm-crops-developing-countries/gm-crops-developing-countries-possible-benefits-gm-crops-developing-co

there's NOTHING ETHICAL about BigAgChem enslaving poor farmers around the world to their sterile seeds and poisoning their land and water with BigAgChem x-icides

boutons_deux

03-21-2014, 05:02 PM

here's a much better approach, rid the world's agriculture, food supply of Mega-corp domination

Radical U.N. Report Promotes Democratic Control of Food and an End to Corporate DominationA new report (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Documents/A_HRC_25_57_ENG.DOC) submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the “Right to Food” took aim at the entire basis on which food is produced and distributed on a global scale. Reflecting the type of progressive analysis of our food system from experts like Vandana Shiva and Michael Pollan, report author Olivier De Schutter called for an undermining of large agribusinesses and an infusion of democratic control.

Although the report’s recommendations are revolutionary, news of its release went largely unreported in the major U.S. media.

De Schutter, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, spent six years visiting more than a dozen countries and concluded that the world’s entire food system should be rebuilt, starting with the promotion of local, sustainable farming so that ordinary people have control over what they can grow and eat. This certainly does not sound radical to those of us in U.S. cities where there has been a rapid expansion of farmers markets and an explosion in backyard farming. But in poor American communities and in poor countries as a whole, it is a radical notion for food to be grown locally, sustainably and democratically.

The world’s food system is controlled by a handful of giant corporations, the majority of which are based in the U.S., such as ConAgra, Cargill and PepsiCo. These companies are a bottleneck through which most of the world’s food is forced, in order to feed most of the world’s people. Not only is this method environmentally unsustainable given its overreliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fossil fuels, but it is also inefficient at actually feeding people. The World Food Programme estimates (http://www.wfp.org/hunger) that there are 842 million hungry people worldwide.

How did it get this way? The “Green Revolution” starting in the 1940s was a promise that a technological fix of high-yielding grains cultivated for mass planting, used in combination with newly developed chemical fertilizers and pesticides, would eliminate world hunger. By some measures the Green Revolution was indeed successful in producing vast amounts of cereal grains that feed a large chunk of the earth’s population. But how did so few companies end up at the top? And why are so many people still hungry today?
In an interview (http://uprisingradio.org/home/2014/03/12/un-rapporteur-submits-groundbreaking-report-on-dismantling-industrial-food-system/) on Uprising (http://www.uprisingradio.org/), I asked food justice activist Raj Patel to explain what went wrong with the Green Revolution and why De Schutter’s report may provide a panacea. Patel is a writer, activist and academic, and he wrote the book “Stuffed and Starved: Markets, Power and the Hidden Battle for the World’s Food System” as well as the New York Times best-seller “The Value of Nothing.” He teaches a class at UC Berkeley with Pollan called Edible Education and is an adviser to De Schutter. According to him, “the food system is carved out of a history of colonialism, of slavery, of empire.”

....

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/radical_un_report_promotes_democratic_control_of_f ood_20140320

pgardn

03-21-2014, 09:16 PM

there's NOTHING ETHICAL about BigAgChem enslaving poor farmers around the world to their sterile seeds and poisoning their land and water with BigAgChem x-icides

Did you actually read the report Mr. Bioethics expert?

Did you check out the organization that WROTE the report Mr. Bioethics expert who does not give a shit about people born into 3rd world poverty? The Corn is not good enough for you... Because you have a choice, what about people that cannot get our shitty corn?

Fake liberal I care so much... About me...

The house is ALREADY on fire and you are pondering how the fire could have been prevented. The GD house is on fire, put it out. Then you can meander through your theoretical prevention.

boutons_deux

03-22-2014, 02:28 PM

Did you actually read the report Mr. Bioethics expert?

Did you check out the organization that WROTE the report Mr. Bioethics expert who does not give a shit about people born into 3rd world poverty? The Corn is not good enough for you... Because you have a choice, what about people that cannot get our shitty corn?

Fake liberal I care so much... About me...

The house is ALREADY on fire and you are pondering how the fire could have been prevented. The GD house is on fire, put it out. Then you can meander through your theoretical prevention.

babbling, dribbling fool and his naive bullshit, after getting bitch slapped by The Great Boutons :lol

pgardn

03-22-2014, 03:11 PM

babbling, dribbling fool and his naive bullshit, after getting bitch slapped by The Great Boutons :lol

This is your I have no further argument default.

Winehole23

07-23-2014, 01:08 AM

GM study on golden rice retracted due to ethics violations, vitamin A claims still unsubstantiated:

AT LONG LAST, the serious breaches of medical and scientific ethics of the GM golden rice trials on Chinese children appear to have been recognised – in this case, by the journal that published the research paper reporting the experiments.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is reportedly retracting the paper. The main concerns appear to be lack of informed consent on the part of the human subjects – neither the children nor their parents were told the rice was GM, nor were they informed of the possible risks. Ethical breaches are among the valid reasons for retracting a study, according to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

While the blame for the fiasco is being placed on the lead researcher, Guangwen Tang of Tufts University, a large part of the responsibility should lie with the Tufts University ethics board that was supposed to be supervising the trial.

International scientists denounced the GM golden rice trials for breaching medical ethics back in 2009. No toxicity tests had been carried out in animals prior to the human trials, or at least none had been published. The scientists said (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/goldenRiceScandal.php) the trials contravened the Nuremberg Code, set up after World War II to prevent a repeat of unethical and inhumane Nazi experiments on humans.

The IRRI, the body responsible for the rollout of GM golden rice, has admitted (http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri) that no efficacy trials have been carried out to see if GM golden rice actually works in helping solve vitamin A deficiency.

GM golden rice doesn't even perform well in the field. In May 2013 the IRRI reported (http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri) it had failed in field trials.

Meantime, the Philippines, where GM golden rice was field trialled, has all but solved (http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15023) its vitamin A deficiency problems by applying time-tested, commonsense non-GM solutions.http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15536

m>s

07-23-2014, 01:20 AM

but yet they put kosher labels on all the food. you guys think jews and elites actually eat this shit? you're all a bunch of fucking clowns because you stuff your faces with this shit and don't do anything about it like a bunch of nihilistic, lazy pussies. whenever ya'll decide you're ready to get angry and do something about the state of things, call me. because these assholes aren't letting up by playing nice, you want something you're going to have to stand up and take it.

m>s

07-23-2014, 01:22 AM

AT LONG LAST, the serious breaches of medical and scientific ethics of the GM golden rice trials on Chinese children appear to have been recognised – in this case, by the journal that published the research paper reporting the experiments.

of course it's fucking unethical, and i never gave my consent or was informed of the risks either. i just hope that at some point in our lifetime we live to see the day of the rope finally come to fruition. they treat us like fucking animals.

boutons_deux

07-23-2014, 04:14 PM

Capitalism and the global food crisis (http://www.counterfire.org/articles/book-reviews/16821-capitalism-and-the-global-food-crisis)

The global food crisis is the result of capitalism, not shortages or overconsumption, and the solution requires collective responses, argues Elaine Graham-Leigh

The global food system is in crisis. There is enough food produced in the world to feed the entire human population, yet every year at least a billion people go hungry. Food price inflation has been relentless since 2007, sparking protests from Mexico to Mauretania, and forming part of the background to the Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011. At the same time, the actual food producers are also suffering, as the commodification of the products of subsistence agriculture is impoverishing farmers and driving them off the land. These two short books, Hungry for Changeand Hungry Capital put different aspects of the food crisis at the centre of their analysis, but are united in considering it as created by capitalism’s expansion within the realm of food production. This leads them to similar conclusions about what should be done; conclusions however which are not always sufficient to the nature and scale of the problem they identify.

Hungry for Change’s focus is on the food producers, as Akram-Lodhi structures his analysis of the problems of the modern food system around the experiences of farmers in the developing world in particular, from coffee farmers in Uganda, subsistence farmers in China and Pakistan, to sugarcane producers in Fiji.Hungry Capital starts from the financial markets and the world of commodity speculation, in which food has gone from the stuff of life to just another commodity, indistinguishable from war planes or widgets, with production determined not by human needs but by profit. This might seem a world away from Hungry for Change’s peasant farmers, but both books make clear that the two spheres are in fact linked. The battles which the poor farmers of Hungry for Change have faced to maintain their livelihoods, in the face of increasing corporate involvement in agricultural markets, arise from the financialisation of food described by Russi in Hungry Capital.

This is brought out particularly strongly by the account in Hungry for Change of the Green Revolution and the subsequent development of GM crops. The Green Revolution was the development in the 1950s and 1960s of new disease-resistant strains of food crops, principally wheat and rice, to increase yields in developing countries like Mexico and India. This revolution remains extremely controversial in green circles. For some it is one of the major causes of environmental degradation, while others see those who object to its legacy as preferring to see poor people starve. (http://www.counterfire.org/articles/book-reviews/16821-capitalism-and-the-global-food-crisis#_edn1)

Akram-Lodhi does not get bogged down in these debates but points out that alongside the gains in crop yields,

the Green Revolution brought about the introduction of the market into subsistence farming systems, which had hitherto remained effectively outside it. In order to reap the benefits of the new technologies, peasants needed cash to buy the seeds, fertilizer and equipment, and continuing supplies of cash to maintain them. Peasants could not longer exist simply by eating their own produce and selling the surplus; they had to sell their crops if they wanted to continue farming. This effect of the Green Revolution would be continued by widespread adoption of GM crops, which are ‘not about improving small-scale peasant productivity; [but] …about monopolistically consolidating the profitability needs of agro-food transnational corporations’ ([I]HfC, p.95).

Movements like Via Campesina, fighting to take back power from the corporations for the benefit of small producers, are therefore an important part of the answer to the problems of the food system, and Akram-Lodhi in particular is clear about the need for genuinely pro-poor land reform. For both authors, however, what is needed goes beyond the demands of current movements, working as they are within the system as it exists. Both books end with visions of food systems removed from capitalism and based on small-scale, local production.

Akram-Lodhi proposes that ‘some food provision could instead become a kind of “commons” – an area outside the exclusive and untrammelled sway of the market, available to all as a basic right of citizenship.’ This is, as he acknowledges, a return to a pre-capitalist reality: ‘For most of our history, being a member of a community has brought with it a right to an elementary amount of food; this has been true for even very poor communities. It is only in the past four centuries that food slowly became something to be bought and sold to the highest bidder’ (HfC, p.157). The system of communal responsibility described here in fact goes back to the Neolithic and did indeed survive in peasant communities, despite the rise and fall of empires and, in Europe, the imposition of feudalism, until it was destroyed by capitalism. This is certainly a demonstration that there is nothing inherent in human nature which means that co-operative production and distribution of food is impossible. Whether it is possible to turn the clock back in the way Akram-Lodhi suggests is however less clear.

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/book-reviews/16821-capitalism-and-the-global-food-crisis

boutons_deux

07-23-2014, 04:52 PM

more on capitalists, mega-corps buying up, controlling the world's food (and water)

Cash Crops With Dividends: Financiers Transforming Strawberries Into Securities

Hedge funds are not new to farmland. For nearly a decade they have scoured the corners of the globe for cheap land as food prices have soared, positioning themselves to profit from the growing demand. Hedge funds now have $14 billion invested in farmland, according to the data provider Preqin.

But in the latest twist, a small but growing group of sophisticated investors and bankers are combining crops and the soil they grow in into an asset class that ordinary investors can buy a piece of.
Farmland Partners and the Gladstone Land Corporation, two real estate investment trusts that also own and lease farmland, are already trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange.

For now, American Farmland is a private company, and its founder, D. Dixon Boardman, is pitching the vision to Wall Street. Corn, cotton, lemons, walnuts, avocados: If it grows in the ground and has an attractive income stream, he is peddling it.

“It’s like gold, but better, because there is this cash flow,” Mr. Boardman said. The income stream comes from the rent farmers pay American Farmland and also often includes a share of the revenue from the crops. The company buys farms with permanent crops like almonds and avocados and row crops like cotton and corn.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/2014/07/21/cash-crops-with-dividends-financiers-transforming-strawberries-into-securities/

and China is buying land all over Africa

Winehole23

02-11-2015, 10:34 PM

just possibly, there's already something that works better than GMOs:

What if the agricultural revolution has already happened and we didn’t realize it? Essentially, that’s the idea in this report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/feb/16/india-rice-farmers-revolution?CMP=twt_gu) from the Guardian about a group of poverty-stricken Indian rice and potato farmers who harvested confirmed world-record yields of rice and potatoes. Best of all: They did it completely sans-GMOs or even chemicals of any kind.

[Sumant] Kumar, a shy young farmer in Nalanda district of India’s poorest state Bihar, had — using only farmyard manure and without any herbicides — grown an astonishing 22.4 tonnes of rice on one hectare [~2.5 acres] of land. This was a world record and with rice the staple food (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/food) of more than half the world’s population of seven billion, big news.

It beat not just the 19.4 tonnes achieved by the “father of rice”, the Chinese agricultural scientist Yuan Longping (http://enterprisechina.net/node/859), but the World Bank-funded scientists at the International Rice Research Institute (http://www.irri.org/) in the Philippines, and anything achieved by the biggest European and American seed and GM companies (http://gu.com/p/3dgah/tw). And it was not just Sumant Kumar. Krishna, Nitish, Sanjay and Bijay, his friends and rivals in Darveshpura, all recorded over 17 tonnes, and many others in the villages around claimed to have more than doubled their usual yields.

Another Bihar farmer broke India’s wheat-growing record the same year. They accomplished all this without GMOs or advanced seed hybrids, artificial fertilizer or herbicide. Instead, they used a technique called System of Rice [or root] Intensification (http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/) (SRI). It’s a technique developed in Madagascar in the 1980s by a French Jesuit and then identified and promulgated by Cornell political scientist and international development specialist Norman Uphoff.

SRI for rice involves starting with fewer, more widely spaced plants; using less water; actively aerating the soil; and applying lots of organic fertilizer. According to Uphoff’s SRI Institute website (http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/CIP_UPWARD_SRICase.pdf) [PDF], the farmers who use synthetic fertilizer with the technique get lower yields than those who farm organically. How’s that for pleasant irony?

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

boutons_deux

02-12-2015, 09:05 AM

just possibly, there's already something that works better than GMOs:

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

that might work:

1) if there's enough manure to scale up to feed large populations (would probably need human "organic" manure, and almost none is organic)

and

2) there's no BigChem dictating government regulations

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/11/21/246386290/organic-farmers-bash-fda-restrictions-on-manure-use

Wild Cobra

02-12-2015, 11:38 AM

just possibly, there's already something that works better than GMOs:

http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/

Yep.

Natural fertilizer, man made CO2 excesses...

sickdsm

02-14-2015, 11:50 AM

GMO's are loaded with defensive traits. Under perfect conditions non gmo crops will out yield gmo a lot of the time. Taking cherry picked data does not mean anything. I raise both. I am willing to show you real world conditions if anyone is open minded.

boutons_deux

02-14-2015, 12:21 PM

Yep.

Natural fertilizer, man made CO2 excesses...

how are you going to fix CO2 into soil? The CCS projects would adore your insight.

sickdsm

02-14-2015, 12:29 PM

I've heard of sludge from sewAge plants having very high metal content making it unsuitable for fert.

boutons_deux

02-14-2015, 12:41 PM

I've heard of sludge from sewAge plants having very high metal content making it unsuitable for fert.

http://www.earthyreport.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sludgegoc.jpg

“In private conversation, farmers that don’t use sludge definitely look down on the guy who sludges,” Dotson said. “It’s kind of like high school, and the people who sludge are the bad kids. But in public, the farmers always have their back. The only person a farmer can trust is another farmer.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/23/waste-lands-the-risksofspreadingsewageonfarms.html

heavy metals, hormones (eg, birth control pills), anti-psychotic and other drugs unused or excreted down the toilet. and not only in sewage sludge, but in non-potable water dumped in rivers from sewage treatment plants.

sickdsm

02-14-2015, 12:45 PM

http://www.earthyreport.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sludgegoc.jpg

“In private conversation, farmers that don’t use sludge definitely look down on the guy who sludges,” Dotson said. “It’s kind of like high school, and the people who sludge are the bad kids. But in public, the farmers always have their back. The only person a farmer can trust is another farmer.”

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/23/waste-lands-the-risksofspreadingsewageonfarms.html

heavy metals, hormones (eg, birth control pills), anti-psychotic and other drugs unused or excreted down the toilet. and not only in sewage sludge, but in non-potable water dumped in rivers from sewage treatment plants.

How is that adding to the discussion? Article confirmed cities polluting farmland and had some drama added in.

boutons_deux

02-14-2015, 12:57 PM

How is that adding to the discussion? Article confirmed cities polluting farmland and had some drama added in.

... which beats the hell of your "I've heard ..." :lol

sickdsm

02-14-2015, 01:50 PM

... which beats the hell of your "I've heard ..." :lol

So do you feel the need to confirm all conversations via Google at a party also?

Winehole23

02-15-2015, 04:21 AM

boutons_deux

02-15-2015, 08:31 AM

So do you feel the need to confirm all conversations via Google at a party also?

"I've heard ...." from our resident expert, degreed agronomist who never reads anyting, "just hears" stuff. :lol

boutons_deux

02-15-2015, 08:59 AM

I'm from Missouri. Show me...

what are "perfect conditions"?

We know "perfect conditions" for GMO crops is max revenue and perennial servitude to Monsanto, Syngenta.

Do GMO Crops Really Have Higher Yields?

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/do-gmo-crops-have-lower-yields

Scientists Prove Organic Food More Nutritionally Rich than Conventional, GMO Crops

http://naturalsociety.com/scientist-organic-crops-better-nutrition-gmo-crops/#ixzz3Roz8gVNp

The "nutritional value" question arises because (mono) crops saturated with chemicals grow in a dead, sterilized soil, all the bugs, worms, fungi, their droppings, decayed bodies found in naturally enriched soil are absent.

The nutritional value of an apple, tomato, ear of corn, or any food from 100 years ago was vastly superior to today's BigAg/BigChem denatured industrial shit.

btw, GMO apple (advancing civilization, solving huge problems: GMO apple doesn't turn brown!!) has been approved.

sickdsm

02-16-2015, 02:01 PM

This is exactly why I'm willing to show someone first hand. I don't really believe people are interested in looking with an open mind on this topic. A copy/paste war is more appealing to some.

If your in the eastern Dakotas during the growing season I'm near the interstate system if you'd like to see first hand.

I really know very little about Missouri Ag, other than it can be very challenging.

sickdsm

02-16-2015, 02:12 PM

"I've heard ...." from our resident expert, degreed agronomist who never reads anyting, "just hears" stuff. :lol

I have no problem with asking questions. I lean on a lot of agronomists, crop scouts, marketing advisers, etc.

When I say I've heard, I don't remember the source only that it was a very knowledgable and trusted person in my contacts. I've had some of them look up the analysis of turkey and dairy manure and it came up in conversation.
They all have many years of both experience and school in the field.

So I'm sorry you feel the need to find an Al-jazeera link to validate.

boutons_deux

02-16-2015, 02:43 PM

I have no problem with asking questions. I lean on a lot of agronomists, crop scouts, marketing advisers, etc.

When I say I've heard, I don't remember the source only that it was a very knowledgable and trusted person in my contacts. I've had some of them look up the analysis of turkey and dairy manure and it came up in conversation.
They all have many years of both experience and school in the field.

So I'm sorry you feel the need to find an Al-jazeera link to validate.

mainstream turkey and dairy manure again ain't organic, but loaded with antibiotics, hormones, chemicals, all kinds of shit. What kind of crop fertilized with factory turkey, chicken, cow shit would you eat?

sickdsm

02-16-2015, 03:13 PM

mainstream turkey and dairy manure again ain't organic, but loaded with antibiotics, hormones, chemicals, all kinds of shit. What kind of crop fertilized with factory turkey, chicken, cow shit would you eat?

Dunno. I know my non gmo soybeans shipped to japan for raw human consumption see the same conditions as the rest of my dirt. They are sprayed with as much chem as the rest.

My cattle that I sell as natural fed are allowed to eat products containing all of that.

I'm sure that meat fetches a premium at the counter.

sickdsm

02-16-2015, 03:14 PM

Why are we suddenly talking about organic?

boutons_deux

04-03-2015, 04:33 AM

New Report Debunks ‘Myth’ That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World (http://firedoglake.com/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-that-gmos-are-key-to-feeding-the-world/)

The biotechnology industry “myth” that feeding billions of people necessitates genetically engineered agriculture has been debunked by a new report out Tuesday by the nonprofit health organization Environmental Working Group.

The report, Feeding the World Without GMOs (http://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/EWG%20Feeding%20the%20World%20Without%20GMOs%20201 5.pdf?_ga=1.241053323.968784389.1427142250) (pdf), argues that investment in genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has failed to expand global food security. It advocates more traditional methods “shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production.”

Over the past 20 years, the report notes, global crop yields have only grown by 20 percent—despite the massive investment in biotechnology.

On the other hand, it continues, in recent decades “the dominant source of yield improvements has been traditional crossbreeding, and that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.”

As the report states, “seed companies’ investment in improving yields in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies, large-scale growers and producers of corn ethanol.”

After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:

*Genetically modified crops—primarily corn and soybeans—have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.

*GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.

*A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than genetically engineered varieties.

Alternately, the report recommends a number of “common sense” strategies for expanding the global food supply, including: implementing a smarter use of fertilizers, eliminating bio-fuels, eliminating food waste, and cutting global meat consumption in half. Producing meat requires huge quantities of often-genetically modified crops such as corn and soy for animal feed.

Further, the report points out, “the narrative that GE crops will help feed the world ignores the fact that hunger is mostly the result of poverty.”

About 70 percent of the world’s poor are farmers, report author Emily Cassidy writes, and to raise them out of poverty requires access to basic resources such as fertilizer, water, and the infrastructure to properly store or transport crops to market—not expensive, resource-intensive GMO seeds.

In a blog post on Wednesday, Cassidy writes (http://commondreams.org/views/2015/04/01/feeding-world-without-gmos): “Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you’d think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields.

But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world.”

http://firedoglake.com/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-that-gmos-are-key-to-feeding-the-world/

GMO, a huge scam by criminal companies Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, etc.

Glyphosate is now a suspected carcinogenic, duh.

GMO is rentier capitalistic agriculture, where the farmer is enslaved to buying corporate seeds (rather using his own, eg, seed corn) and chemicals annually, FOREVER, for little gain.

boutons_deux

04-30-2015, 11:46 AM

Wild Cobra

04-30-2015, 12:05 PM

Monsanto Secretly Gave Money to Farmer Caught Contaminating Organic Farms with GMOs

Now admits to paying for GMO farmer’s legal defense

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-secretly-contributes-money-mo-farmer-organic-crops/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=8b7a400cb7-Email+731%3A+4%2F30%2F2015+-+Fruit+30x+Vitamin+C&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-8b7a400cb7-324066477

and you marans think the GMO industry is about feeding the planet, improving crop yields, improving food quality, making the world a better place? :lol

We know it's driven by profit motive. Thing is, such unscrupulous things like intentional contamination should be paid for big time by Monsanto, should it be shown to be true. Those participating in the conspiracy should all go to jail.

I prefer to buy natural products. I want truth in labeling laws to apply to GMO. But when idiots like you go ranting and raving over any thing that smells suspicious, nobody takes you serious and you hurt valid efforts. You are a total joke. Ever try to be more reasonable on issues?

boutons_deux

04-30-2015, 12:19 PM

I prefer to buy natural products. I want truth in labeling laws to apply to GMO

... just another garden-variety Oregon hippie.

boutons_deux

04-30-2015, 03:01 PM

Researchers from New Zealand and Mexico have discovered that (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2812827/glyphosate_24d_dicamba_herbicides_cause_antibiotic _resistance.html) glyphosate (aka Monsanto’s Roundup), dicamba, and 2,4-D all play a key role in antibiotic resistance (http://naturalsociety.com/new-study-monsantos-herbicides-are-breeding-super-bugs/).

The paper (http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15.full.pdf+html) published in American Society for Microbiology explains that:

“Increasingly common chemicals used in agriculture, domestic gardens, and public places can induce a multiple-antibiotic resistance phenotype in potential pathogens. The effect occurs upon simultaneous exposure to antibiotics and is faster than the lethal effect of antibiotics. The magnitude of the induced response may undermine antibiotic therapy and substantially increase the probability of spontaneous mutation to higher levels of resistance.

The combination of high use of both herbicides and antibiotics in proximity to farm animals and important insects, such as honeybees, might also compromise their therapeutic effects and drive greater use of antibiotics. To address the crisis of antibiotic resistance requires broadening our view of environmental contributors to the evolution of resistance.”

To whit, all three of Monsanto’s trademarked chemicals were tested on E. coli (which causes more bacterial infections than almost any other type), and Salmonella bacteria with one of five commonly prescribed antibiotics: Ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, ampicillin, kanamicin, and tetracycline.

Even very low levels of herbicides induced antibiotic resistance with these bacteria – and before the antibiotics even had enough time to kill the bacteria off.

In a few cases when two of the herbicides were combined, they made the bacteria more susceptible to the antibiotic, and sometimes there was no impact. But overwhelmingly, the study shows that Monsanto’s chemicals caused antibiotic resistance.

While the traces of these chemicals found in food were not enough to trigger antibiotic resistance, you have to understand that it starts on the farm, and ends up in your stomach.

http://naturalsociety.com/how-monsantos-glyphosate-is-generating-deadly-antibiotic-resistance/

boutons_deux

08-18-2015, 05:45 AM

Did you notice the italics on natural Boots? Say no...

Jesus you are totally stuck. So you are telling me if there was a GM crop you could grow in salty soil where NONE could be grown before, you would not use it. Even in a place people where people were severely malnourished?

This is Boots the humanitarian.
HE does not like GM crops in his grocery store.
Does Boots realize that not everyone walks through
a produce section casually selecting their Organics...

Again a broad statement, ALL GM crops are bad, they are funded by Corporations, gets in the way of common sense.
You see GM, and it reflexively scares the hell out of you.
Golden Rice.... Run... And that's just one.

South African researchers have created new beta carotene- rich sweet potatoes that could offer a solution to rampant vitamin A deficiency.

Of the 12 varieties tested for beta carotene content, taste and cultivation qualities, the Impilo and Purple Sunset varieties showed most promise.

A 4.4-ounce (124.7g) serving of the Impilo sweet potato provided 113% of the daily vitamin A requirement of a 4-8 year old, while Purple Sunset provided 261%.

A third variety – Bophelo – had higher beta-carotene than Impilo and fared better in taste tests but the researchers planned further breeding to improve its resistance to different weather conditions.

Researchers from the University of the Free State, Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and the Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute in South Africa created the varieties using conventional breeding techniques –something one of the authors, Professor Maryke Labuschagne, said would hold added appeal in largely anti-GM Africa.

http://mobile.nutraingredients.com/Research/GM-free-sweet-potatoes-answer-to-vitamin-A-deficiency?utm_source=RSS_text_news&utm_medium=RSS_feed&utm_campaign=RSS_Text_News

pgardn

08-18-2015, 06:58 AM

South African researchers have created new beta carotene- rich sweet potatoes that could offer a solution to rampant vitamin A deficiency.

Of the 12 varieties tested for beta carotene content, taste and cultivation qualities, the Impilo and Purple Sunset varieties showed most promise.

A 4.4-ounce (124.7g) serving of the Impilo sweet potato provided 113% of the daily vitamin A requirement of a 4-8 year old, while Purple Sunset provided 261%.

A third variety – Bophelo – had higher beta-carotene than Impilo and fared better in taste tests but the researchers planned further breeding to improve its resistance to different weather conditions.

Researchers from the University of the Free State, Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and the Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute in South Africa created the varieties using conventional breeding techniques –something one of the authors, Professor Maryke Labuschagne, said would hold added appeal in largely anti-GM Africa.

http://mobile.nutraingredients.com/Research/GM-free-sweet-potatoes-answer-to-vitamin-A-deficiency?utm_source=RSS_text_news&utm_medium=RSS_feed&utm_campaign=RSS_Text_News

There was a reason rice was tried, not potatoes.
Tell the board why it was important in RICE.

Other than that, cool. It still does not make the use of GM organisms useful as they have already been and continue to be very useful for many applications. Science moves forward, boots overreaches and trashes a successful, widely used scientific method.

Winehole23

02-25-2017, 11:47 AM

Nassim Taleb weighs in on golden rice hype:

Consider the story of the genetically modified Golden Rice. Some firms discovered the sucker problem of people’s ability to fall for (lucrative) science as a savior of mankind. There has been a problem of malnutrition and nutrient deficiency in many developing countries, which my collaborators Yaneer Bar Yam and Joe Norman attribute to a simple and very straightforward transportation issue. Simply, we waste more than a third of our food supply and the gains from simple improvement in the distribution far outweigh those from modification of supply. Simply consider that close to eighty or eighty five percent of the cost of a tomato will be attributed to transportation, storage, waste (from the rotting of unsold inventories), rather than the cost at the farmer level.

Now the “techies” saw an angle of intervention. First, you find pictures of starving children and show their pictures to elicit sympathy and prevent further discussion –anyone who argues in the presence of dying children is a heartless a**hole. Second you make it look that any critic of your method is arguing against saving the children. Third, you propose some scientific looking technique that is lucrative to you and, should it cause a catastrophe or blight, you are insulated from the long term effects. Fourth, you enlist the journalists and the useful idiots, people who hate things that appear “unscientific” in their unscientific eyes. Fifth, you create a smear campaign to harm the reputation of researchers who, not having f*** you money, are very vulnerable to the slightest blemish to their reputation.

https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surgeons-23b0e2cf6d52#.w4sx0nw79

Winehole23

02-25-2017, 11:49 AM

The technique in question consists in genetically modifying rice to have the grains include vitamins.

My colleagues and I made an effort to show the following, which is a criticism of the method in general. First, transgenics, that is the type of genetic modifications thus obtained, were not analytically in the same category as the cross breeding of plants and animals that have characterized human activities since husbandry –say potatoes or mandarin oranges. We skipped complexity classes and the effects on the environment were not foreseeable –nobody studied the interactions. We even showed that there was a patent increase in systemic risk. Second, there was no proper risk study and the statistical methods in the papers in support of the argument were flawed. Third, we invoked the principle of simplicity which was called antiscience. Why don’t we give these people rice and vitamins separately? After all we don’t have genetically modified coffee that has milk with it. Fourth we were able to show that GMOs brought a bevy of hidden risk to the environment, in terms of higher use of pesticide which killed the microbiome.

The first result was an organized smear campaign Close to 1500 messages were sent to my university, which were tracked to Ketchum the public relation firm that represents Montanto. It was not just ineffectual, but brought more attention to our work, particularly among people who had interest in complexity theory and systemic risk management.

boutons_deux

11-12-2017, 12:25 PM

16 Health Problems That Improved in Patients Who Switched From GMO to Organic Diets

A new study reveals the harsh reality of a diet filled with genetically modified foods.

Health problems that improved include:

Digestive: 85.2%
Fatigue, low energy: 60.4%
Overweight or obesity: 54.6%
Clouding of consciousness, “brain fog”: 51.7%
Food allergies or sensitivities: 50.2%
Mood problems, such as anxiety or depression: 51.1%
Memory, concentration: 48.1%
Joint pain: 47.5%
Seasonal allergies: 46.6%
Gluten sensitivities: 42.2%
Insomnia: 33.2%
Other skin conditions (not eczema): 30.9%
Hormonal problems: 30.4%
Musculoskeletal pain: 25.2%
Autoimmune disease: 21.4%
Eczema: 20.8%
Cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure: 19.8%

This confirms the reports from hundreds of healthcare practitioners and thousands of individuals. When people from all walks of life eat less GMO foods, a significant percentage get better quickly.

In the article, I describe three ways in which GMOs may contribute to health problems:

The process of genetic modification itself damages DNA, which can add allergens, toxins, and anti-nutrients to food.
Most GM corn produces Bt toxin, an insecticide linked with allergies and gut damage.
All six major GMOs are engineered to be herbicide tolerant (HT)—to survive spray applications of weed killer. By far, the most widely grown HT crops are, produced by Monsanto to withstand treatments of Roundup.GMO foods, therefore containhigh residues of Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate, which is classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Roundup is also linked to a myriad of other serious diseases.

The article pays special attention to how the side effects of GMOs could lead to digestive disorders, reviewing more than two decades of studies and explores several potential causative pathways that may help explain why digestive problems and other related diseases have been rising in parallel with the increased acreage of GMOs in the U.S. and the application of Roundup on these crop acres.

https://www.alternet.org/food/16-health-problems-improved-patients-who-switched-gmo-organic-diets

tlongII

11-12-2017, 04:45 PM

Bullshit

AaronY

11-12-2017, 04:50 PM

Bullshit

Correct:
"There is a scientific consensus[165][166][167][168] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[169][170][171][172][173]"

This is one of my pet peeves about liberalism. We mock Rs for not following science on climate change then have a retarded, paranoid, anti-science attitude about GMOs

spurraider21

11-12-2017, 05:23 PM

:lol alternet

pgardn

11-12-2017, 06:13 PM

Correct:
"There is a scientific consensus[165][166][167][168] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[169][170][171][172][173]"

This is one of my pet peeves about liberalism. We mock Rs for not following science on climate change then have a retarded, paranoid, anti-science attitude about GMOs

Boom.
Exactly.

Vaccines as well.

boutons_deux

11-12-2017, 06:21 PM

Even if GMO food shit doesn't cause disease (as scientific whores say), the entire rational for GMO is not to increase nutrition, nor yield, but to poison crops, soil, air, water with fungicides, insecticides, etc, while enslaving agriculture to seed sales and chemicals.

boutons_deux

11-12-2017, 06:27 PM

Of course, without fail, "wait, there's more", esp from oligarchy's Secretary of Environmental Poisoning Agency

Pruitt’s Rejection of Chlorpyrifos Ban Seems Based on Alternative Facts

BY PAUL KOBERSTEIN (http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/oeuvre/Paul-Koberstein%20/)– APRIL 5, 2017

EPA chief fails to explain what data prompted his decision to allow continued use of the toxic pesticide, environmental groups file suit

The US Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump may have stepped into the brave new world of alternative facts.

Last November, after several years of study, the EPA had announced (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454) that the insecticide chlorpyrifos poses an unacceptable risk to humans, especially children, when its residue is found in fruits, vegetables, and drinking water.

But on March 31 — the day the ban was scheduled to take effect (http://www.pesticidereform.org/2017/03/09/deadline-for-us-epa-to-ban-brain-harming-chlorpyrifos-march-31/) — new EPA Administrator

Scott Pruitt determined that chlorpyrifos isn’t dangerous after all and rejected the ban.

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/pruitts_rejection_of_chlorpyrifos_ban_seems_based_ on_alternative_facts/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_5_QBRC9ARIsADVww1702hO-WZHQu8KGrkQpPONRHHLsadMoV22ro5rOsVwSXwUhkGXWYW4aAp tnEALw_wcB (http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/pruitts_rejection_of_chlorpyrifos_ban_seems_based_ on_alternative_facts/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_5_QBRC9ARIsADVww1702hO-WZHQu8KGrkQpPONRHHLsadMoV22ro5rOsVwSXwUhkGXWYW4aAp tnEALw_wcB)

tlongII

11-12-2017, 06:30 PM

AaronY

11-12-2017, 07:09 PM

Boom.
Exactly.

Vaccines as well.
Truthfully a pew research poll showed GMO skepticism was like 60% (!) among Dems and 51% among Republicans so at least its bi-partisan. But that won't make me feel better when some libtard nature nut bitch gets into office via our increasingly far left and right extremist party system and stops big companies like Monsanto from making GMOs. Could even see a scenario where stopping GMOs causes starvation deaths of maybe millions of third world people. All because some tree-hugging retarded bitch is superstitiously afraid of chemicals and wants to get back to "mother nature"

boutons_deux

11-12-2017, 07:14 PM

AaronY

11-12-2017, 07:14 PM

I misremembered the numbers. looks like about the same for each party and lower than I thought but still alarmingly high

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/11/30153851/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_3-05.png

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/ps_2016-12-01_food-science_3-07/

thats from december 2016
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/

AaronY

11-12-2017, 07:18 PM

100Ks, Ms? of Indian farmers have committed suicide because they couldn't afford to keep buying GMO and Monsanto/Syngenta poisons.

Proof GMO crops have reduced starvation, AND with no other "side effects"

"GM cotton has driven farmers to suicide: False"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-hard-look-at-3-myths-about-genetically-modified-crops/

pgardn

11-12-2017, 07:19 PM

Truthfully a pew research poll showed GMO skepticism was like 60% (!) among Dems and 51% among Republicans so at least its bi-partisan. But that won't make me feel better when some libtard nature nut bitch gets into office via our increasingly far left and right extremist party system and stops big companies like Monsanto from making GMOs. Could even see a scenario where stopping GMOs causes starvation deaths of maybe millions of third world people. All because some tree-hugging retarded bitch is superstitiously afraid of chemicals and wants to get back to "mother nature"

Insulin would be an impossibly ridiculous price if it were not for GMOs.
This happened way back but is never mentioned. There are so many products in medicine that save lives due to GMOs. It's F'N ridiculous.

AaronY

11-12-2017, 07:26 PM

Insulin would be an impossibly ridiculous price if it were not for GMOs.
This happened way back but is never mentioned. There are so many products in medicine that save lives due to GMOs. It's F'N ridiculous.
"Hey, I don't want drastically improved crop yields thereby providing cheaper food which would help solve the world hunger problem because I'm superstitiously afraid of fucking science"

lmao I watched a docu on the amazon rainforest and everything there plant wise is super toxic because the animal life is so packed in tight the vegetation has to develop a defense mechanism against being eaten too fast. The animals have to eat handfuls of clay to detox all the chemicals. The researchers couldn't for the life of them figure out why they were eating clay by the handful till they discovered this. Bottom line if you go out into "mother nature" and randomly eat shit you'll get sick and die (sup hemlock) so the retarded notion that something from nature is safe and something from a lab is inherently bad is dangerously retarded.

Basically need to do the logical thing and judge each compound on its own merits whether its natural or man-made

pgardn

11-12-2017, 07:30 PM

"Hey, I don't want drastically improved crop yields thereby providing cheaper food which would help solve the world hunger problem because I'm superstitiously afraid of fucking science"

lmao I watched a docu on the amazon rainforest and everything there plant wise is super toxic because the animal life is so packed in tight the vegetation has to develop a defense mechanism against being eaten too fast. The animals have to eat handfuls of clay to detox all the chemicals. The researchers couldn't for the life of them figure out why they were eating clay by the handful till they discovered this. Bottom line if you go out into "mother nature" and randomly eat shit you'll get sick and die (sup hemlock) so the retarded notion that something from nature is safe and something from a lab is inherently bad is dangerously retarded.

Basically need to do the logical thing and judge each compound on its own merits whether its natural or man-made

And on the microscopic level there are so many bacterial toxins, wicked viruses, but no, it's apart of mother nature, so it's all good.