Reply With Quote
Why are we suddenly talking about organic?
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.
Why are we suddenly talking about organic?
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 (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: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 quan ies of often-genetically modified crops such as corn and soy for animal feed.
*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.
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: “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/ne...ing-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.
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-s...0cb7-324066477
and you marans think the GMO industry is about feeding the planet, improving crop yields, improving food quality, making the world a better place?
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.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-s...0cb7-324066477
and you marans think the GMO industry is about feeding the planet, improving crop yields, improving food quality, making the world a better place?
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 su ious, nobody takes you serious and you hurt valid efforts. You are a total joke. Ever try to be more reasonable on issues?
... just another garden-variety Oregon hippie.
Researchers from New Zealand and Mexico have discovered that glyphosate (aka Monsanto’s Roundup), dicamba, and 2,4-D all play a key role in antibiotic resistance.
The paper 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-monsan...ic-resistance/
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 Ins ute 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/R...=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.
Nassim Taleb weighs in on golden rice hype:
https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-...d52#.w4sx0nw79Consider 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.
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.
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 prac ioners 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-hea...-organic-diets
Bull
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 re ed, paranoid, anti-science at ude about GMOs
alternet
Boom.
Exactly.
Vaccines as well.
Even if GMO food doesn't cause disease (as scientific s 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.
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 – 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 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 — 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
What a crock of . You couldn’t be more wrong.
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 lib nature nut 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 re ed is supers iously afraid of chemicals and wants to get back to "mother nature"
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"
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-con...ience_3-05.png
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/0...-science_3-07/
thats from december 2016
"GM cotton has driven farmers to suicide: False"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...odified-crops/
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 supers iously afraid of ing 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 you'll get sick and die (sup hemlock) so the re ed notion that something from nature is safe and something from a lab is inherently bad is dangerously re ed.
Basically need to do the logical thing and judge each compound on its own merits whether its natural or man-made
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions