Neil Young takes on Monsanto
brianlux
Posts: 42,025
In an interview recently, Neil mentioned that making music is his first job. He's also one of those rare endangered birds who, after all these years, is still not afraid to tackle big issues. In his upcoming LP, Uncle Neil takes on Monsanto. Definitely looking forward to this one!
http://pitchfork.com/news/59348-neil-young-announces-monsanto-themed-lp-recorded-with-willie-nelsons-sons/
http://pitchfork.com/news/59348-neil-young-announces-monsanto-themed-lp-recorded-with-willie-nelsons-sons/
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Comments
Go Neil!
How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food
Uncovering the Real Story Behind Mark Lynas' Conversion from Climate Change Journalist to Cheerleader for Genetically Modified Foods
Big kudos to Chipotle Grill!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/04/27/402632212/chipotle-says-adios-to-gmos-as-food-industry-strips-away-ingredients
Chipotle Says Adios To GMOs, As Food Industry Strips Away Ingredients
Fast-casual food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill has announced it has removed all ingredients made with genetically modified organisms from its menu, making good on a two-year-old promise. It's the latest example of the food industry stripping away ingredients, some more questionable than others, as consumers demand a say in what's in their dinner.
There is no scientific evidence that GMOs pose a risk to health, as Chipotle founder and co-CEO Steve Ells readily acknowledges. "I don't think this is about GMOs being harmful or not being harmful to your health," Ells tells The Salt. "It's a bigger picture. It's really part of our food with integrity journey."
After Chipotle committed to ditching GMOs in 2013, its corn and flour tortillas were among the hardest items to revamp. But they're now GMO-free, thanks to Chipotle's collaborations with suppliers to plant non-GMO corn varieties. The soybean oil in the chips and taco shells, which was GMO, has also been replaced with non-GMO sunflower oil.
But the journey isn't done: Chipotle still uses meat from animals that may feed on GMO corn or soybeans. Ells says he wants to change that, but it is likely to take several years.
Michael Moss, author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, applauds Chipotle's move to remove GMOs from its menu. "I'm ambivalent about GMOs, personally," Moss tells The Salt, "but I think Chipotle, with this move, is once again showing how fast it's positioning the company to respond to its customers' concerns about food."
...more at link.
I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I'm not a fan of fast food but on the few occasions I'm out and want something quick I always look for a Chipotle.
https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf
This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used on non-GMO crops as well as the Round-Up Ready crops.
To say GMO is unhealthy because it is often grown in glyphosate is akin to saying broccoli is unhealthy because people put cheese sauce on it.
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
What some of us DO WANT is to have good, natural, healthy foods available to us and our families and to know what is in our food, i.e food labeling.
And lets remember that Monsanto is not just about making sure people get their fair share of Frankenfoods- they are also largely responsible for spreading massive amounts of poisonous chemicals in the environment (and wildlife don't know and don't have the choices we do so they end up eating things laden with these poisons). There are a whole slew of environmental disasters connected to the work of Monsanto.
Unhealthy Fixation - The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.
I am 100% convinced that most people who are against GMOs have no idea why they are against them. They seem to assume that them being GMO makes them dangerous to your health, but there is ZERO evidence of that, and I don't think there ever will be any evidence of that. The harm that pesticides might do is a completely different issue. I cannot believe the way certain media spins GMO stories to make them seem dangerous for health when they aren't. The REAL issue with GMOs is how they harm local economies and independent farmers, especially in poorer countries, and they are gradually putting the agricultural industry closer to the same sinister lines that the pharmaceutical companies occupy. THAT is why I am not in favour of GMOs. These other articles about how they harm people or kill bees, etc etc are pure bullshit as far as I can tell.
If you're going to hate GMOs and GMO companies, at least hate them for the right reasons.
I would love to see an answer to dignin's original question posed some months ago:
Here's what I came up with so far in answer to dignin's question:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/
Frankly Jeff, an exhaustive search for articles about GMO's would probably result in a greater number of them saying GMO's are safe rather than not safe. Even the esteemed scientist E. O. Wilson has argued that GMO's are probably safe and I'm a big E. O. Wilson fan.
But I still stand firm in my distrust of GMO's for two basic reasons:
1). We don't know the long term effects of GMO's on human and other animals health or how their use will alter ecosystems over a long period of time. The possibility that they will permanently alter ecosystems is good to great. Is the potential that these changes could have negative, permanent long-term effects worth the short term gain?
2). I want the option to live in a world where ecosystems and ecological balances are determined by natural systems and cycles. I don't want to live in a world artificially altered by humans tinkering with nature.
It is already too late for that. I was born into a world that was still predominantly natural in it's make up, a world in which weather patterns were not quite yet altered by burning fossil fuels, a world where one city in America (Flagstaff, AZ) could still legitimately claim to have clean air. Today, most of the world's ecosystems have been long-term or permanently damaged, the climate has been anthropogenically altered and there are no longer any cities that have clean air. I will argue against further artificial altering of our world until the day I die because I remember living in a real world. I bet on earth and sky.
But crops grown organically have little or no long-term affect on an ecosystem. A farm field left fallow will so revert to pioneer plants and through ecological succession will become either a natural dessert, a grassland meadow, or shrubs will replace pioneer plants which in turn will become a woodland- first a young forest and eventually an old growth forest. So yes, I would argue that all land sea and air are part of ecosystems. Plus it's fairly well know that pollen from GMO crops drift on wind and affect non-GMO crops.
Edit: I must be becoming a sentimental old fool. When I think about things like natural succession and how we have disrupted those processes and see the sky become more polluted each year watch the earth continue to degrade I become very weary and depressed.
Streaming has ended for me," the Canadian folk bard wrote yesterday on his Facebook (FB, Tech30) page. "I hope this is ok for my fans. It's not because of the money, although my share (like all other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad calls made without my consent."
"It's about sound quality," Young continued, explaining his decision to pull all his music from streaming services. "I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."
Uhh, uncle neil, nobody sitting in their car kn the way home from work tunes yiu in for the sound quality. They just want to hear rockin in the free world. Personally, I think it's a silly move. This is how music is broadcast now. Radio is pretty much dead all while pandora, spotify, satellite radio, and satellite radio are flourishing. Sorry uncle neil, I think you're going to anger many fans.
I respect Neil's views on this. He finds sound quality really really important. He has a connection with his music, and doesn't want it to be heard like that. I think that's totally fair. There are PLENTY of other options besides steaming available to his fans.