The World According to Monsanto

godpt3

theroachman wrote:

yes nitrogen is what you get but it is made from ammonia which comes from Natural Gas.

The two most common fertilizers are ammonium nitrate (the stuff tim mcveigh used in OKC) and anhydrous ammonia (favored by meth makers everywhere).

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

No brainer...

well until you can get the pope to stop being catholic sustainable population is out of the question.

theroachman

he still stands wrote:

wow dude lighten up. "mofo" is like saying "bro" or "kid"... no harm intended. Nobody is shoving poisons down your throat. GM foods have one protein exchanged from another plant or bacteria to the host plant through the process of hybridization. GM foods have been ingested for over 50 years now and no credible scientiest will tell you there is a link between GM foods and any disease. Organic farming is MORE harmful to the environment and there is no nutritional benefit in fact organics can HARM you more than genetically modified foods because they are fertilized with hundreds of lbs per acre of SHIT or HUMAN WASTE that gives you E Coli or floats down the river. BILLIONS of people would starve if all gm crops were switched to organics because of the huge yield loss that is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN, not in theory but in practice. I could go on and on about this but again... I've gotta go catch a flight to SF!!!

And I say "peace" because I am a big liberal fucking hippie... who happens to disagree with you all about this situation....

Did you go to UC Davis or Chico State? I have good freinds who were ag majors at Chico who work for the Ag department out of Phonex many years ago. Lost track of them.

But point is

That is where the studies of this idea that GMOs make more food. It just is not true. If only for the fact that we are running out of cheap oil. And when that is gone so goes the GMO farms.


Have as safe flight

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

well until you can get the pope to stop being catholic sustainable population is out of the question.

There is something to agree on. There is no question IMO that churches such as the Catholics and the Evangelical Protestants are a road block to a safe future for all of us.

The catholics who think there is no limites to how many humans can fit on this earth

and

The Evangelical Protestants who want us all to die (Armageden) so they can go to heaven and finally be happy with themselves.

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

The two most common fertilizers are ammonium nitrate (the stuff tim mcveigh used in OKC) and anhydrous ammonia (favored by meth makers everywhere).

Exactly

they are both made from Natural Gas

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

I read that. And I don't think it means what you think it means.

from the article I posted


" In fact, they would often have a little patch of organic potatoes by the house for themselves, because they could not eat the food coming out of their farms. "


Looks like it does say what I think it says. There is a lot more on that in the full book.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

well until you can get the pope to stop being catholic sustainable population is out of the question.

Regardless Organic is better.

godpt3

theroachman wrote:

" In fact, they would often have a little patch of organic potatoes by the house for themselves, because they could not eat the food coming out of their farms. "

that applies to pretty much any chemical you put on any crop at all. Read the warning labels on the stuff that repels insects from your garden tomato plants and they say the same thing. You've got to wait X number of days before eating the fruit. That's just the nature of the beast.

theroachman

godpt3 wrote:

that applies to pretty much any chemical you put on any crop at all. Read the warning labels on the stuff that repels insects from your garden tomato plants and they say the same thing. You've got to wait X number of days before eating the fruit. That's just the nature of the beast.

That is sad

I eat my tomatos right off the vine. I often pick lettuce and eat it with in seconds. Sometimes there is still dirt on it. Mmm good organic food.

Just as god created.

El_Kabong

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/El_Kabong/hungryman_dees.jpg

theroachman

El_Kabong wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/El_Kabong/hungryman_dees.jpg

Fantastic thanks for sharing

he still stands

theroachman wrote:

Did you go to UC Davis or Chico State? I have good freinds who were ag majors at Chico who work for the Ag department out of Phonex many years ago. Lost track of them.

No actually I went to University of Illinois then Western Illinois University. I got out of the Ag Science thing (Genetics and Hyrbridization Specialist) at age 24 (3 years ago) because unless you have a PhD you aren't gonna make over $50 or $60k.

theroachman wrote:

That is where the studies of this idea that GMOs make more food. It just is not true.

The first objective of any Genetically Modified crop is to increase yield. Growers number one priority is to make more money and since Agriculture is a perfect competition (the grower has no say in the price he gets from the customer), Yield is the number one trait that any grower will seek. The Grower (farmer) will have his choice of numerous providers (including the "devil" Monsanto) who will try to sell him on their seed/fertizilizer/pesticide being the one that will be the best option for their yield. All other GM benefits (disease resistance, pest resistance, etc) are important but are secondary to the crop's yield.

theroachman wrote:

If only for the fact that we are running out of cheap oil. And when that is gone so goes the GMO farms.

Oil is definitely an important variable. Oil drives the input cost of any crop more than anything else (fuel, fertilizers [NH3 especially], transportation of the crop). But I'm failing to see why oil price would cause farmers to go to organic farming. It may take slightly less oil to farm organically (still need fuel to plant, cultivate, harvest, till... as well as to transport the crop) but when your yield is cut in half or worse, and same with revenue, then that argument goes right out the window. Again, the ONLY reason I advocate GM foods is because the world simply cannot be fed with organic farming practices. Tertiary to this is my belief, as well as every credible (unbiased) scientist's belief, that GM crops are not harmful. I eat them every day and believe me, I do not want to cause harm to myself. I have absolutely no problem with people eating organic foods, I simply want people to be educated about the truth. This argument sometime reminds me of interviews from the 80s where people were asked where the food came from and their answer was "the grocery store." I just want people to be educated about agriculture since it has been part of my life since I was a kid.

theroachman wrote:

Have as safe flight.

Thanks. The Santa Cruz show was amazing. I just wish I could make it to more shows!!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

El_Kabong wrote:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/El_Kabong/hungryman_dees.jpg

lol...

LaterDays

So... what practical solution do you all anti-GMO advocates propose? I hear a lot of complaining, a lot of worry, but no suggestions of remedy.

Legally speaking, in the US anyway, you have quite an uphill battle to fight. GMOs dominate the grocery industry, its market share grows a little each year, and there aren't any real signs (that I've seen, at least) indicating this trend is slowing or reversing.

And right now, the EU continues to hold out... but international treaties such as the Codex Alimentarius (as amended recently) demonstrate, on some level, what seems to me a movement towards the US approach (and, thus, away from the European approach).

Assuming as much, I have a few questions for you all:

1. 20 years from now, what do you honestly predict the status/impact of GM foods in the international community to be?

2. Practically speaking, assuming GMOs do pose some as-of-yet unsubstantiated high-level threat to either health or the environment, where do we go from here? How do you change the present status of GMOs? Can you? Do we pass legislation making the manufacture, sell, offer to sell, etc. of Genetically Modified food products illegal? Subject to fine? If so, based on what science (since there is, by no means, an objective consensus in the scientific community against GMOs)?

3. Do you believe we should work towards banning them outright, or do you believe the solution is in manufacturing GMOs more carefully/skillfully to better account for risks to health/environment?

....

Or is the dilemma, in your opinion, helpless and futile? Is the game over, and you all are just talking about how much it sucks that you've lost? Or is it Hillary v. Barack... pretty much over, but still a lot of people holding out for some long-shot hope? Or is it really a winnable fight from the anti-GMO standpoint?

Enlighten me...

LaterDays

even flow? wrote:

Cell phones (option) compared to a monopoly on our (yes you too) food supply? You have got to be kidding!

I had just came across this story when I brought up the cell phone analogy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-or-asbestos-802602.html?r=RSS

And I stand by my point with respect to it. Technology is a fact of life in today's society... it's impact is felt dramatically in virtually every facet of modern human existence. But technology, both because of man's limited scientific understanding and because of technology's relative "newness," necessarily carries with it both promise and risk.

You can't get the promise and benefits w/out the risk. But obviously some technologies are more risky than others... some offer more promise than others. So we, as society, are left to determine how exactly is best to balance these factors.

Reading the article posted above, it's clear that 20 years ago (if these claims were around then), the cell phone industry might've been a controversial topic on Pearl Jam political boards. People would be blowing the whistle, saying that this industry is knowingly exposing people to toxic levels of radiation that scientists and certain studies have declared cause brain cancer.

And that's my point... we can take an alarmist approach to any technological advancement. We can say, "No pharmaceuticals... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health!" We can say, "No cell phones or microwaves... they could have profound, unforetold, detrimental effects on health." And so on.

But from a practical standpoint, the government has to perform the role of gate-keeper... let some technology in, keep some out. It has to draw a line somewhere. And that's what it has done. The EPA has strict regulations regarding GMOs (field test studies, third-party environmental impact reports, etc). These regulations were adopted subject to notice-and-comment guidelines in the APA, and anyone was free to chime in as to what the process entailed. Tons of scientific evidence is submitted, for and against, and the EPA is left to decide, in accordance w/ its statutory guidelines, whether the GMO has met its burden of proving itself "safe" for consumption and development. Similarly, the FDA requires extensive clinical trials and scientific data before a GMO food can hit the market. GMOs are not typically considered GRAS (generally recognized as safe), so the burden is especially lofty. The ones that make it through the FDA and the EPA are not given some free pass. They have satisfied a high burden of proof/production the gov't has determined is necessary to make it to the market. The idea that GMOs are some sort of "Franken food" unsafe for consumption is unsubstantiated. And the burden is no longer on GMOs (in America) to demonstrate their safety... they've met that burden... it is now on GMO opponents to demonstrate that the ones on the market are unsafe. And they have failed, and continue to fail, in doing so.

Shit, I gotta run.

theroachman

Anybody can fix stats to there liking but here is some stuff I found as best as I could from more netural sources and comprensive studies


Yeilds:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/513110/



(PDF file)

http://www.bugwood.org/arthropod2005/vol1/6c.pdf



health

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Organic-is-healthier-3A-Kiwis-prove-that-green-is-good-4619-1/


from an not so netural source but a recap of the problems of GMO farming

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/31/105543/484

LaterDays

I agree... one can find support on the internet for any claim, regardless of merit. The links I posted a few pages back (at the request of someone wishing to see a "link" supporting the pro-GM stance) I didn't post under the guise of a neutral authority... I googled something like "are GMO foods safe?" and copied the URLs of the websites arguing they are. I even said something to the effect of, "You can find support for anything on the internet." And as a general rule I don't put much stock into much of what's on the web. That said... here's something from the FDA's site that gives what I believe to be a fairly good overview of the market share, safety issues, and labeling status.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html

Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT? (Disclaimer: Caps used to draw attention to the inquiry, not to convey frustration, anger, etc.) You're against GMOs. I get it. You think they're unsafe for consumption and harmful to the environment. You have your reasons and you have your support. Fine. But what's the next step passed complaining about the situation and arguing the merits of your claim? What is the remedy/solution? What, to use legalese, is your "prayer for relief?" What do you want done about it (practically speaking), how do you intend to go about getting that done (is it even possible?), and where do you see the food industry (again, practically speaking... not ideally) 20 years from now?

DriftingByTheStorm

he still stands wrote:

BILLIONS of people would starve if all gm crops were switched to organics because of the huge yield loss that is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN, not in theory but in practice.

First - I'm pretty sure that human waste is [as of yet] still not legal for use on food crops. Correct me if i am wrong, but that was the case when i volunteered on a Permaculture\Biointensive farm for two years back in 2000ish.

Now, as for the quote:
This absolutely proven business. Do these studies factor in the "absolutely proven" loss\degradation of topsoil that occurs with "conventional" agriculture? Because i'm pretty sure it is a scientific fact that intensive fertilization with nitrogen rich petrochemical fertilizers eventualy kills off most\all soil life, thus rendering the soil worthless for farming.

Also, and i don't have the time now to go digging around for these studies (but i will at some point), i have seen similar studies that show that when sustianable agriculture is done properly (ie biointensive beds, covercrops, permaculture practices, IPM, etc) that the caloric yield per unit of land is equal to or execeeds that of "conventional" agriculture.

The only caveat i am aware of, is that this is a much more LABOR intensive process.

And when you say "yield loss", again, i don't think you are counting the eventual loss of productivity of entire tract of land under conventional agriculture (i've seen what this soil becomes, it ain't pretty) ... and you certainly aren't bothering to mention ENERGY efficiency. The amount of "petro-calories" needed to produce one calorie of food with "conventional" agriculture are astronomicaly higher than those needed with most any form of sustainable farming.

"Organic" farming is a stop gap measure, which only addresses (in theory) nutritional value ... it does little to address the systemic problems with the agriculture production & distribution system, which is still very much an energy intensive and non-local operation. And it is still by and large done with monocropping.

Anyhow.
Let me know.
Clearly, you are an Ag major or something, so i'm the David in this battle.

DriftingByTheStorm

LaterDays wrote:

Regardless, no one has answered my question: WHAT DO YOU WANT DONE ABOUT IT?

A good first step would be a return to honest labeling.
Remember perfect consumers (and perfect markets) only exist where there is perfect information.

The GMO lobby has gone out of its way to ensure that consumers do NOT have access to label information telling them if any GMOs are in their food.

In FACT, there are actualy now laws on the book PROHIBITING producers from including such information!

WHY !?!

Start by requiring ALL producers to specify any GMO content in their foods, and thus allowing consumers to choose wether or not to consume these items.

You realize that now with the RBGH labels on milk, the use of RBGH in milk is almost disappearing? Consumers have voted with their wallets for organic milk over regular milk, and Non-RBGH milk over RBGH milk.

Unfortunately the Monsantos of the world are fighting back with a furry, and if they get their way there will be a 100% reversal of this trend, with ALL dairy cows being required to receive RBGH injections.

If you truly think that getting producers to label their goods with SPECIFIC GMO CONTENT is not possible or is somehow cost-prohibitive, we may as well give up. I laugh at the contention, considering just how much information is already required on labels ... SURELY sourcing your products to find GMO content is NOT the straw that broke the camels back? :rolleyes:

What do you think?

theroachman

If GMOs are so great why doesnt Monsanto and others Label there foods with huge labels spouting how great they are?

Why do they need to hide the fact that GMOs are in some foods?