Pesiticides in GMO Sweet Corn
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
Here's some Frankenstein Science for ya:
http://truefoodnow.org/2011/09/22/keep- ... ner-plate/
"Surveys over the past decade have consistently shown that Americans don’t want to eat genetically engineered (GE or GMO) food. Despite the overwhelming opposition to this risky new food technology, the biotech giant Monsanto continues to impose its unlabeled GMO’s onto our dinner plates.
The latest: Monsanto’s new GMO corn, intended for the frozen and/or canned corn market. This experimental corn will not be labeled, so consumers cannot know when they may be eating a GMO food that contains a toxic pesticide in every bite. Monsanto’s corn is a new GMO variety that has been genetically modified for three different traits, to resist two different insects and to withstand heavy spraying with Monsanto’s toxic Roundup herbicide. Because there are already varieties of other insect-resistant and Roundup-Ready varieties on the market, federal regulators are not requiring ANY approval process—which means NO public comment on its introduction into our food supply."
Not on my dinner plate! :(
http://truefoodnow.org/2011/09/22/keep- ... ner-plate/
"Surveys over the past decade have consistently shown that Americans don’t want to eat genetically engineered (GE or GMO) food. Despite the overwhelming opposition to this risky new food technology, the biotech giant Monsanto continues to impose its unlabeled GMO’s onto our dinner plates.
The latest: Monsanto’s new GMO corn, intended for the frozen and/or canned corn market. This experimental corn will not be labeled, so consumers cannot know when they may be eating a GMO food that contains a toxic pesticide in every bite. Monsanto’s corn is a new GMO variety that has been genetically modified for three different traits, to resist two different insects and to withstand heavy spraying with Monsanto’s toxic Roundup herbicide. Because there are already varieties of other insect-resistant and Roundup-Ready varieties on the market, federal regulators are not requiring ANY approval process—which means NO public comment on its introduction into our food supply."
Not on my dinner plate! :(
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Ok, this made me laugh.
Yes and no. If you have super duper high grade health insurance you might be able to afford the GMO's and pesiticides you ingest. I'm firmly convinced that a non-GMO diet is, in the long run, less expensive. My past health record is bad- I have had Epstein-Barr Virus, was once laid up for three months with extreem mononucleosis, spent three days unconscious in a hospital from something I ate, have had pleurisy and pneumonia, German measels, vertigo, severe migrain headaches, tinitus and hyperacusis. My ears are still a mess and I'm 60 years old but people say I look like I'm 45 and I hardly ever go to the doctor anymore. Why? You guessed it- a healthy diet. Yes it is more expensive to eat organic produce- but I budget my income and I shop at our local Farmer's market which cuts out the middle man and gives me the good feeling of supporting our local economy- and the savings in doctor bills allows me to eat well. I'm sure there are some folks who just can't eat this way all the time but I'm convinced many more can than do. (And, please, don't anybody assume I can do this because I'm a "privileged liberal". My income is below the U.S. average.)
But enough about me. Most of you can probably eat better quality food if you want to and all of us can ask our grocers to stock non-GMO products and write letters and sign petitions (even if just the "one-click" on-line kind- it all adds up) voicing your disapproval of GMO's. This is an important issue. Please stand with me on this. Thanks!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
there are several things wrong with this statement. First of all, it's all already genetically modified.... this is nothing new. Second, the genetically modified traits allows for them to spray Roundup on the corn which is applied at about two to three OUNCES per acre, so saying "HEAVY spraying" isn't correct. Third, they say there is a "toxic pesticide" in every bite... well, that could be said about ANYTHING, sometimes even if it is organic, at the PPM level.
not that I support Monsanto... science and the truth make me horny.
I think you are talking about me. Food Inc (for the most part) was a farse for sure. However, I don't work for Monsanto or any company affiliated with them.
yeah ... urban agriculture is skyrocketing now ...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
no, I don't "support" GMO food. But it certainly doesn't scare me to eat it because I haven't seen any scientific proof that it is problematic. All that's happening is a change of one protein sequence in the DNA, and your body doesn't know the difference (unless it is allergic to that new protein, which is very unlikely).
There are major problems in agriculture.. like the breadth (no pun intended) of the food source being diminished so that there are only a few dozen strains in production now and hundreds used to occur naturally.... that scares me because our food source is much more susceptible to disease ruining entire continents of crops.
I certainly don't support Monsanto... I just don't see how we can "overthrow" the company like a dictatorship when the scientific proof shows they aren't shoving poison down our throats, as everyone here would like me to believe. Where's the body bags? What's the death count? Where's the proof? Show it to me and I'll be the first one in line to condemn these agriculture practices.
Excellent point about the low number of strains of food being produced, he still stands! I read an article (I'll look for it) about a small farm somehwere in the Andes where close to 100 different plant food species were being grown on one acre- and this was not an experiment- it's just a method that works well for these growers- the yeilds from this farm are fantastic.
When I get a chance, I'll post some links and book titles that address the dangers of GMO foods. The evidence is in abundance- I just don't have the time this morning to find the sources.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
the issue is also who is going to do the testing ... non-monsanto scientists need grants ... and similar to nano technology ... no one wants to get into it because there isn't a multi-trillion dollar corporation out to counter monsanto's bs ...
also ... it's not just deaths ... what about the increase in allergies in the population? ... and the health of ecosystems?
If it freaks you out, buy organic. Simple solution. Or you can worry and complain about it for the rest of your life. Me ... I'm going fishing.
Later hosers.
food shortages and starvation are issues of distribution not production
Many of us are familiar with Monsanto the seed giant, but who knew the company was making a new ready-to-eat packaged broccoli? The new product is called Beneforté, and it quietly launched last October. This vegetable is not genetically modified (i.e. no pesticides were engineered into its genes), but rather a hybrid of commercial broccoli with a variety native to southern Italy.
Advertised with a "naturally better broccoli" tag line, the selling point pitched at the health conscious is that "it boosts the body's antioxidant enzymes at least 2 times more than other broccoli." Specifically, one serving of Beneforté broccoli "naturally contains 2 - 3 times the phytonutrient glucoraphanin [a type of glucosinolate] as a serving of other leading broccoli varieties produced under similar growing conditions."
"Similar growing conditions" -- there's an interesting tidbit. For all we know, then, Beneforté's glucopharanin content could pale in comparison to that of organic broccoli. Of course, this obsession with glucoraphanin is a silly and myopic distraction. Broccoli, by virtue of being a vegetable, is healthful and does not need to be improved upon. None of the myriad of chronic health issues affecting millions of Americans are due to "faulty broccoli" with low levels of glucoraphanin.
The biggest irony of this product lies in Monsanto's claim that Beneforté "help maintain your body's defenses against the damage of environmental pollutants and free radicals."
Environmental pollutants? As in, the ones that have have increased exponentially as a result of genetic engineering? A 2009 report [PDF] by The Organic Center, titled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years" concluded: "the most striking finding is that GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996- 2008)."
As the Environmental Working Group points out, herbicides "cause a litany of health effects, including cancer, birth defects, and disruption of the endocrine (hormone) system." And we're talking about an additional 383 million pounds solely attributed to bio-engineered seeds like the ones Monsanto offers. Let's also not forget Monsanto's "global pollution legacy", as the folks at SourceWatch so brilliantly put it.
There is no reason for broccoli to become a "value added" food product. Let's treat it with dignity and appreciate its worth as a vegetable. And, above all, let's not allow Monsanto to get away with gimmicky healthwashing. Despite what they may want you to think, supporting organic, sustainable agriculture -- and, whenever possible, your local farmers -- is still much more important for your health and that of the planet than purchasing trademarked "naturally better broccoli."
Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, is a Seattle-based dietitian who approaches nutrition from a whole-foods, plant-centric framework. He also takes a strong interest in food politics, nutrition policy, and deceptive food industry marketing tactics. He is the creator of the Small Bites blog and can be followed on Twitter.
Aside from the genetic modification of plants that are otherwise, nearly perfectly suited for humans, you have the environment in which so much of the vegetation is cultivated. There's a reason why cantaloupes are contaminated with listeria, and why we have to watch out for e-coli on spinach, and salmonella in eggs. It's because of the disgusting conditions in which those foods are produced.
Can you imagine...I mean seriously just imagine...if you had farmers actually farming? Instead of just growing a 1,000 acres of corn, you had them growing 50 acres of broccoli, 50 acres of lettuce, 50 acres of cabbage, 50 acres of greens, 50 acres of cucumber, 50 acres of tomatoes, 50 acres of beans, etc. etc. and whatever else they can grow within their region and season? You could do all that and still have 400 acres to grow corn, and then another 100 acres for raising pastured poultry for fresh eggs and meat, pastured pork and allowing cattle to eat....gasp....GRASS?!?!? Unfortunately our society is spoiled with things like buying tomatoes in January, and we like to buy all of our food on demand which means we have to also import.
My family and I have made a point to produce as much of our own food as humanly possible. I haven't even bought bread in over a year, we simply buy large bags of non-bromated flour and make anything and everything we want. We grow alot of our own fruits and vegetables, and extras we either give away, sell or preserve. We've been raising our own chickens for eggs and meat, and even started raising our own turkeys. So instead of them living a life in a concentration camp environment, they get to run around, nibble on grass, catch bugs, enjoy the fresh air and sunshine if they want to and just be chickens. It's just an amazing thing. We're even getting into raising our own fish...primarily Tilapia and Catfish, and we are employing Aquaponics. I ran an experimental system over the spring and it was phenomenal. The fish waste, provides nutrients to the plants, the grow beds for the plants filter the water, and the water returns back to the fish crystal clear. You haven't seen plant growth until you've seen it done in a system like that, it's really hard to believe. Anyway, sorry to rant, but once you get on that wave, it's hard to get off. NOTHING you buy at the store will ever taste as good as what you grow in your backyard.
if there was a standing ovation smiley ... i'd give you one!
Thanks. This is just something I'm extremely passionate about. I think my passion comes from having my eyes opened to how truly easy it is to do on your own...and it's not only easy, it's fun!! I mean once you get into it, you start looking back and wondering why you haven't been in charge of your food all your life. I just think it's ridiculous in this day and age that crap factory processed food is so much cheaper than stuff that is produced naturally by the sun. They subsidize everything else with taxpayer money, I think they should subsidize the production of organically grown fruits and vegetables, and in exchange for that tax payer expense, make that produce the most affordable food on the market. Let people get a stalk of broccoli for a quarter. I know that's only a dream, and a bit of my inner-socialist speaking.
So, what's the truth?
Well it depends on how you want to spin it and how the organic farmer is fertilizing. The underlying premise for organic farming requiring more land, is that organic farmers user manure as their fertilizer instead of chemical fertilizers. So if you are using manure, people automatically assume cattle as the source of manure, so in turn you need more land for the cattle. I guess people don't think about the fact that you don't have to use cow manure, you can compost chicken manure, rabbit manure, coffee grounds, old vegetation, establish earthworm beds, and a myriad of other items to produce a very good soil/fertilizer. Anything that provides nitrogen and nutrients that isn't too acidic will work well. You can liquify a combination of waste products and manure into a type of "tea" that can be used as a liquid fertilizer.
Again, it doesn't have to be cow manure, so the theory that it uses more land, well it just depends on what animals you want to use to fertilize with and how you are utilizing them. Even if you use cattle, if you rotationally graze them, you can typically get 5 times the production per acre, because you concentrate the cattle in somewhat smaller areas and each day they move to a fresh patch of pasture. You aren't cruely restricting them, you're just ensuring they eat all their veggies. Cows are like kids, if you let your kid run wild on a buffet it's likely they would get all the yummy food first and skip the brussell sprouts. Cows do the same thing when they are grazing. However if you concentrate their numbers, then it flips a competitive switch in them and they each whatever is in front of them so the cow next to them doesn't get it. Then each day, or every other day, you move them to a new patch. So you have more cattle concentrated on smaller areas of land, eating more of what they should be eating, and each cow is going to be leaving you 50lbs of fertilizer everyday. Then if your system is a really well oiled machine, you bring your pastured poultry in right after you move the cows. They scratch and sift through the manure eating little larvae and bugs out of it, as well as spreading it with their feet to help aerate it. You can either leave it or harvest it for use as fertilizer after that.
Thanks for the answer. Interesting.
The land is there, cincybearcat, although I would argue we could use more gardens and view starter castles. Bio-intensive, double digging, complementary planting, crop rotation, nitrogen fixing planting and a host of other organic gardening methods make much better use of the land, yield higher crops and produce healthier food. Again, I don't have time to list references right now- I'll try to do so later.
Meanwhile, thank you polaris_x and Shawshank for providing some references already! More to follow... phew- busy days!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
But, from what I've read the yield loss (from most crops) can be recaptured by year 5 or year 6. The cost of production rises significantly as well because the growing process switches from being capital intensive to being labor intensive. From personal experience, however, yield losses in corn and soybeans are massive.
This might all seem very confusing but I think you have to remember a very simple fact of life; farmers are growing food "conventionally" because it is more profitable. I think if you guys want to do something about this, you should lobby local/national government to either incent farmers to grow food organically or dissuade them from growing crops conventionally.
And like I keep saying... vote with your pocket book. If demand rises enough the profit potential will be there for farmers to make the switch.
Yeah, some of that incentive comes from demand, for sure. My brother manages a small farming operation in the North West. They realized a few years back that the demand for organics was growing and saw the wisdom of switching much of the operation over to organics (I'm guessing that meant leasing different parcels of land or letting the old ones lay fallow for a certain period of time).
"Vote with your pocket book"-- Yes!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricult ... gineering/
UCSUSA desdcribes themselves thusly: "The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices."
And for those of you who are interested in further reading on this (and other related ) issue:
Richard Manning: Against the Grain
Bill McKibben: Enough and Eaarth
Also the quarterly "OnEarth" from the Natural Resources Defense Council:
http://www.onearth.org/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
on top of what others have said ... you have to look at the entire picture ... similar to my discussions with he still stands ... often the industrialized food system focuses strictly on yields ... but traditional farming is way more sustainable for a myriad of reasons including:
* less use of resources
* less toxic waste generated
* more healthier soil thus requiring less fertilizer
* more nutrient rich and better tasting food (obviously there will be debates about this but just go buy a heirloom tomato from the farmers market and compare it to your store bought variety)
then there is the human side of things ... farmers that are working for the industrialized food system are beholden to biotech companies like monsanto in so many ways ...
and the biggest myth perpetrated by the industrialized food system is that we need to grow it this way to feed the world ... we can easily grow enough food for people - the issue has always been about distribution and the control of that distribution ... some 40% of food that is grown is wasted and never even gets the opportunity to go into someone's dinner table ... also, with the industrialized system ... what you get are countries are forced to grow a certain crop like bananas but don't end up growing food to feed the populace ... because all that bananas are exported out to the world and the profits in the hands of the multi-nationals ...
I have a dream....and please don't laugh....but I have had this dream for a while now to try and start an organization that would fund a farm to grow enough crops of a diverse variety, along with grass-fed beef, poultry, pork etc. to sustain a homeless shelter. My wife works at one every week, so she bakes and cooks alot for that, but they are so lacking on their budget that the food a lot of times is just nasty. How amazing would it be to provide them with an abundance of fresh food? Eventually work up to where a farm is big enough and funded well enough to start it's own store that supplies nothing but basic grocery items, fruits, veggies, meat at extremely cheap prices. I've never really sat down to put pen to paper, but I've been thinking more and more about this, and how it could work.
why would anyone laugh!?
not only is this very realistic and plausible - it goes back to what truly is important to our survival ... sustainability and food ... if people have the opportunity to eat well, everything springs from that ... they will be healthier thus allowing them to spend their energy being productive ...
my advice:
run a csa and farm stand to help offset the costs of feeding the homeless ... have restaurants buy your produce and meats ... have it volunteer run ...