October is GMO Awareness Month.

[stanmrak]

If you aren't aware of the hazards of GM crops, it's about time you found out. What have we learned about GM crops after 30 years of GMO experimentation? Here's what the data shows:
• No increase in crop yields. On the contrary, genetically modified soy has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy.
• No reduction in pesticides use. On the contrary, USDA data shows that genetically modified crops have increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S. A 2009 study showed that, over the last 13 years, Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.
• GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S. studies
• Creation of new superbugs. Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ overuse of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds. To fight them, farmers are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.
• Deforestation. Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados have been decimated to grow GM soy in Latin and South America.
• Spread of Death and Diseases. Genetically modified foods and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses around the world.

In addition, once GM crops are planted in the open environment, they contaminate non-GM and organic varieties, as the seeds are spread by wind and foraging animals. If Monsanto has its way, you ultimately won't have a choice when it comes to buying your food — it will all be contaminated with GM technology.

The best site for inside information is: Institute for Responsible Technology

[Groundless]

This is another health crisis caused by corporations.

What will we do about it is the question?

[goldberg]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

If you aren't aware of the hazards of GM crops, it's about time you found out. What have we learned about GM crops after 30 years of GMO experimentation? Here's what the data shows:
• No increase in crop yields. On the contrary, genetically modified soy has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy.
• No reduction in pesticides use. On the contrary, USDA data shows that genetically modified crops have increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S. A 2009 study showed that, over the last 13 years, Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.
• GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S. studies
• Creation of new superbugs. Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ overuse of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds. To fight them, farmers are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.
• Deforestation. Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados have been decimated to grow GM soy in Latin and South America.
• Spread of Death and Diseases. Genetically modified foods and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses around the world.

In addition, once GM crops are planted in the open environment, they contaminate non-GM and organic varieties, as the seeds are spread by wind and foraging animals. If Monsanto has its way, you ultimately won't have a choice when it comes to buying your food — it will all be contaminated with GM technology.

The best site for inside information is: Institute for Responsible Technology

Way to give only one side of the argument.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by goldberg

Way to give only one side of the argument.

Way to pointlessly quote a very long post and not contribute any meaningful discussion.

[goldberg]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Way to pointlessly quote a very long post and not contribute any meaningful discussion.

I disagree, it is important to point out the obvious huge bias in that posting.
Anyhow. It is not as cut and dried as the opp suggests, the website he links to does not even attempt to give any kind of balanced view.

wikipedia. There have been increases in in crop yields shown in studies. Another link showing it can boost yields. newscientist.

No reduction in pesticide. Conviently misses out the increase in pesticide usage across the board, with non gm crops also.

GM crops harm wildlife - so does non-gm farming.

Creation of new superbugs - non-gm farming can also lead to this.

deforestation - occurs due to farming, not specifically because of gm farming.

Spread of Death and Diseases - evidence for this? Specifically evidence that it is worse than non-gm farming.

Essentially this attack on gm conveniantly does not mention the fact that non-gm farming is hugely damaging to the environment also.

[stanmrak]

These points are all arguments that the biotech industry has made for GM agriculture. They're all false. I'm only presenting one side of the argument here because Monsanto won't tell you this side.

BTW, Monsanto employees are most likely monitoring Wikipedia and editing the content to fit their agenda. It's a rampant problem with wiki.

Goldberg, your arguments neglect to mention the fact that there's no debate about whether organic agriculture is healthy or poses a threat to the world food supply. The same can't be said for GM produce.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

If you aren't aware of the hazards of GM crops, it's about time you found out. What have we learned about GM crops after 30 years of GMO experimentation? Here's what the data shows:
• No increase in crop yields. On the contrary, genetically modified soy has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soy.
• No reduction in pesticides use. On the contrary, USDA data shows that genetically modified crops have increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S. A 2009 study showed that, over the last 13 years, Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.
• GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S. studies
• Creation of new superbugs. Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ overuse of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds. To fight them, farmers are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.
Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.
• Deforestation. Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados have been decimated to grow GM soy in Latin and South America.
• Spread of Death and Diseases. Genetically modified foods and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses around the world.

In addition, once GM crops are planted in the open environment, they contaminate non-GM and organic varieties, as the seeds are spread by wind and foraging animals. If Monsanto has its way, you ultimately won't have a choice when it comes to buying your food — it will all be contaminated with GM technology.

The best site for inside information is: Institute for Responsible Technology

"Breast Cancer Awareness Month" is a scam.
Exerpt from an article from Mike Adams at naturalnews.com:

First of all, notice that it's called Breast Cancer Awareness Month, not Breast Cancer Prevention Month.

The whole point of this awareness month is not actually to increase awareness of breast cancer -- virtually everyone is already aware of the existence of the disease -- but rather to increase fear so that more women will go get screened for cancer. They should really call it the "Be Afraid of Breast Cancer Month."

The big push for more cancer screening only results in more recruitment of women into high-profit cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and surgery. This is where the real profits are to be found, and Breast Cancer Awareness Month is really all about corralling women into these high-profit treatments.

The science, by the way, says that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery harm far more women than they help, and that cancer over-diagnosis and over-treatment is such a huge problem today that all these breast cancer awareness campaigns are actually hurting women's health across the board.

Yeah, I know. Everyone knows someone who was "cured" of cancer because of early screening. What you don't hear about are all the people who get cancer because of exposure to radiation from cancer screenings. The cancer industry keeps that under the rug; it's bad for business.

To illustrate this point, ask yourself why the cancer industry doesn't promote the use of vitamin D supplements. Studies have shown that if everyone had optimal levels of vitamin D in their blood, cancer rates would drop as much as 77 percent, almost immediately! Instead, they encourage you to stay out of the sun and use sunblock every time you do go out.

Read the full essay here: Why isn't it called Breast Cancer Prevention Month?

Someone is on point today.

[garentee]

One of the biggest reasons to not use GMO farming methods is because they are untested for their safety. A previous poster asked what to do about this? Start farming and provide your food to supermarkets...Until we are looking at institutionalized local agriculture.. local food is a special occaison food. Farmers markets are a special occasion. I do feel funny saying all this since I derive most of my income from selling vegetables at the farmers market etc. It is absurd that we as a nation have gotten so lazy and expectant on others to do the hard work of feeding us that we are far far far from self sufficient. We have gotten away from our food and our food system...Start farming or at the very least buy from your local farmer.. find them on localharvest.org and demand local from your supermarket. We used to be a nation of farmers, now we have creeps from monsanto running our govermental agencies .. no wonder GMOs are everywhere.. It is up to you.,... Start farming or eat cardboard crap from those creeps at monsanto.

[ssandra]

This guy says it all so much better than I ever could:

Michael Specter: The danger of science denial | Video on TED.com

[ginkgo]

Actually GMO makes a lot of money for the people using it. That is all they care about. Just like a lot of the things done in medicine is for profit. Here is a famous doctor (D.O.) talking about GMO and getting it banned in the U.S.A.
Genetically Modified Foods Banned in Europe

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

This guy says it all so much better than I ever could:

Michael Specter: The danger of science denial | Video on TED.com

I thought you were smarter then that Specter? Really? Specter is a cause the very problem he claims to be trying to fix. And talk about one sided!! I wonder how much he gets yearly from Monsanto.

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by ssandra

This guy says it all so much better than I ever could:

Michael Specter: The danger of science denial | Video on TED.com

YIKES! This guy really is scary. Like, Dick Cheney/Newt Gingrich scary!
ssandra, be very careful before you buy into his wacky perspectives.

[thirial]

guys make sure you watch this documentary, it is one of the scariest things i have ever seen....

The World According to Monsanto | Watch Free Documentary Online

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I thought you were smarter then that Specter? Really? Specter is a cause the very problem he claims to be trying to fix. And talk about one sided!! I wonder how much he gets yearly from Monsanto.

I don't know the guy. I don't know his politics or his agenda. All I know is that that talk that he gave that I linked to, made a lot of sense to me.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I don't know the guy. I don't know his politics or his agenda. All I know is that that talk that he gave that I linked to, made a lot of sense to me.

It really made sense to you, that no possible natural way of farming will be able to sustain our population. And that no matter what, we MUST genetically modify our food, with out actually having all the research into it's consequences behind it. That we cannot possibly feed the world, or provide full nutrition, with existing species? The guy is a quack, in the pockets of big business, period. He gives no references for anything to back up all these wild claims. All his talking points are exactly the propagandist talking points of the GMO companies. There as absolutely no real proof that they will yield more crop nor that it's THE solution, or the ONLY solution. All that, while they sue every single little farmer who just happens to have their freaken seeds accidentally land in their field. They are trying to push out every single little guy, and make big business even bigger. Instead of changing our habits to suit the world, we'd rather change the world to suit us. Instead of teaching people how to live sustainable lives, lets just rape the planet even more. Specter is too accepting of Big Business's version of scientific truth and biased against opposing voices. He calls nutritional supplements as a group "Big Placebo." He points to a few examples calling them "crap." He picks up a bottle of Acai and says, "I don't even know what this is, but it's crap." Isn't that a great scientific statement!!!

[goldberg]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

It really made sense to you, that no possible natural way of farming will be able to sustain our population. And that no matter what, we MUST genetically modify our food, with out actually having all the research into it's consequences behind it. That we cannot possibly feed the world, or provide full nutrition, with existing species? The guy is a quack, in the pockets of big business, period. He gives no references for anything to back up all these wild claims. All his talking points are exactly the propagandist talking points of the GMO companies. There as absolutely no real proof that they will yield more crop nor that it's THE solution, or the ONLY solution. All that, while they sue every single little farmer who just happens to have their freaken seeds accidentally land in their field. They are trying to push out every single little guy, and make big business even bigger. Instead of changing our habits to suit the world, we'd rather change the world to suit us. Instead of teaching people how to live sustainable lives, lets just rape the planet even more. Specter is too accepting of Big Business's version of scientific truth and biased against opposing voices. He calls nutritional supplements as a group "Big Placebo." He points to a few examples calling them "crap." He picks up a bottle of Acai and says, "I don't even know what this is, but it's crap." Isn't that a great scientific statement!!!

Depends on your definition of natural farming, if natural means not using pesticides or herbicides, then yes he is correct you cannot sustain the current population without using these artificial means.

Sounds like you are advocating a human cull, thats the only way you get to your idyllic planet.

Most nutritional supplements are placebos, if they had active ingredients that actually did much of anything then they would be classed as drugs. Acai does not help with the things which is was touted for so in that sense it is crap.

[goldberg]

>These points are all arguments that the biotech industry has made for GM >agriculture. They're all false. I'm only presenting one side of the argument >here because Monsanto won't tell you this side.

Provide some evidence to refute the points I made.

>BTW, Monsanto employees are most likely monitoring Wikipedia and editing >the content to fit their agenda. It's a rampant problem with wiki.

You could say exactly the same about the anti gmo lobby. There is a huge organic/environmentalist lobby at work. There are special interests on both sides of the GM debate.

>Goldberg, your arguments neglect to mention the fact that there's no >debate about whether organic agriculture is healthy or poses a threat to >the world food supply. The same can't be said for GM produce.
>

Going organic could pose a threat to the worlds food supply, just because there is little debate about it does not make that go away.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by ssandra

All I know is that that talk that he gave that I linked to, made a lot of sense to me.

Indeed... Wise words are wise words, even if spoken by a fool.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I don't know the guy. I don't know his politics or his agenda. All I know is that that talk that he gave that I linked to, made a lot of sense to me.

Thanks for the link. I agree with you

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

It really made sense to you, ........

It made sense to me that it is ridiculous to disregard studies and science in favor of fear tactics and the opinions of people who didn't study in this field.

I indeed disagree with him about the natural medicine. I know that there is a lot that has been proven to work.
But I also don't think that if you eat three wonder berries a day, your cancer will go away.


Big deal for me: I don't believe in the "evil corporation" that is trying to make us sicker and hold us back.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

It made sense to me that it is ridiculous to disregard studies and science in favor of fear tactics and the opinions of people who didn't study in this field.

I indeed disagree with him about the natural medicine. I know that there is a lot that has been proven to work.
But I also don't think that if you eat three wonder berries a day, your cancer will go away.


Big deal for me: I don't believe in the "evil corporation" that is trying to make us sicker and hold us back.

The whole "wonder berries " thing is not a ploy by the people who tout it's health benefits, but a ploy from the people who abuse these types of products for their own gain. there are a lot of natural things that work, and they don't all start off as miracle cures, until some company starts advertising them as that. Or they see some famous person like Oprah say that they are healthy, and then they start using her picture to advertise everywhere and say it's a MIRACLE cure. There are no supplements that are miracle cures, as far as I know at least There are many that will make you healthier, but once people get over that little marketing scheme, things would be easier for everyone.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The whole "wonder berries " thing is not a ploy by the people who tout it's health benefits, but a ploy from the people who abuse these types of products for their own gain. there are a lot of natural things that work, and they don't all start off as miracle cures, until some company starts advertising them as that. Or they see some famous person like Oprah say that they are healthy, and then they start using her picture to advertise everywhere and say it's a MIRACLE cure. There are no supplements that are miracle cures, as far as I know at least There are many that will make you healthier, but once people get over that little marketing scheme, things would be easier for everyone.

Agreed

Actually The berries that he talks about, I think I have a shampoo that is made of that I didn't buy it because of the berries, but because I trust the brand to do what it promises, and it has delivered.

But that is exactly what I am talking about. I think that GM food can be used for good and it can be used for bad. I don't see a reason to disregard all GM food just because there can be uses of it for bad.

Same as I don't see a reason to disregard all natural supplements, just because some companies exaggerate with their advertising.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Agreed

Actually The berries that he talks about, I think I have a shampoo that is made of that I didn't buy it because of the berries, but because I trust the brand to do what it promises, and it has delivered.

But that is exactly what I am talking about. I think that GM food can be used for good and it can be used for bad. I don't see a reason to disregard all GM food just because there can be uses of it for bad.

Same as I don't see a reason to disregard all natural supplements, just because some companies exaggerate with their advertising.

The companies making the GMO foods, is becoming a monolopy, and they will control a lot of the worlds food. I mean, you HAVE TO buy seeds from them, because you can't get seeds on your own as the plants they make don't produce viable seeds anymore. That means relying on one company, for a long time. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, that the company goes out and finds it's plants in other peoples harvests, just because of cross pollination and sues them out of business! They are patenting nature. It's doing nothing but pushing every little guy out. And most rational people, don't want big conglomerates controlling everything. PLUS, they are way to pushy to get their products out there with out giving it enough time for testing. Look how many places are outright banning GMO foods. I mean, there is much more to this then what I have mentioned, but even with what I have just said, are we really being paranoid?

Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers - CBS Evening News - CBS News
Monsanto Sues Midwest Farmers for Saving Soybean Seeds
Monsanto sues more small family farmers | AsiaDHRRA Online

and to add to that, all a farmer has to do is throw some of their seeds into their neighbors harvest, and call big bad monsanto and put their competition out of buisness.

I don't want this company ANYWHERE near my food, sorry

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by goldberg

Depends on your definition of natural farming, if natural means not using pesticides or herbicides, then yes he is correct you cannot sustain the current population without using these artificial means.

ugh, I'm so tired of hearing this opinion.

Food not lawns.

I grow the majority of the produce that I eat myself, without the use of any pesticides. I also have 2 friends who are local farmers who also do not use pesticides, they use biodynamic permaculture techniques.

On GM - what the frick are we doing? We don't even fully understand genetics or the impact of messing with all the biochemical interactions in a plant, yet we feel like it's ok to mess around with this stuff.

Like me letting my toddler do my taxes.

[ssandra]

That is a strong case against this COMPANY indeed.

But it doesn't meant that all GM food is bad, or that we should stop researching it. It just means that everybody should apply to their councilman, or governor or whatever you have for more clearly defined rules and regulations in this area (for example; make it illegal to patent food).

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The companies making the GMO foods, is becoming a monolopy, and they will control a lot of the worlds food. I mean, you HAVE TO buy seeds from them, because you can't get seeds on your own as the plants they make don't produce viable seeds anymore. That means relying on one company, for a long time.

I don't want this company ANYWHERE near my food, sorry

As Sandra said, it argues against one company, not against GMO in general. I assume you also boycott Apple for the same reason.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ssandra

That is a strong case against this COMPANY indeed.

But it doesn't meant that all GM food is bad, or that we should stop researching it. It just means that everybody should apply to their councilman, or governor or whatever you have for more clearly defined rules and regulations in this area (for example; make it illegal to patent food).

Then no companies will make the seeds anymore, if they can't patent it. If only life were that simple.

GM food is bad, because the COMPANIES who are the ONLY ONES doing it, are doing it for a profit and aren't looking towards the hazards it will cause in the future.

You claim I made a strong case against the company, but if this company is the only one doing it, why should we still allow it to happen? Unless you see other companies that are just as powerful as this company, doing this same thing, but doing it in a better way, then that means GMO food is bad.

(obviously nothing is bad or good. but you get the point)

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by metamorph

As Sandra said, it argues against one company, not against GMO in general. I assume you also boycott Apple for the same reason.

Really, because apple is the only one that makes computers? We are talking about our FOOD SOURCES here, and you are bringing up a computer company?

[garentee]

Funny thing is that the argument that organic cannot feed the world is not entirely true. It is far more useful to look at food distribution policies and look at the waste by large farms. I think (as a vegetable and animal farmer) that these technologies are highly unnecessary. HIGHLY> and that the only benefit is to the folks who are lining their pockets with the extreme profits made from controling the market and suing the bejesus out of the small growers. Frankly this is bad and unnecessary science run amuck.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Then no companies will make the seeds anymore, if they can't patent it. If only life were that simple.

GM food is bad, because the COMPANIES who are the ONLY ONES doing it, are doing it for a profit and aren't looking towards the hazards it will cause in the future.

You claim I made a strong case against the company, but if this coming is the only one doing it, why should we still allow it to happen? Unless you see other companies that are just as powerful as this company, doing this same thing, but doing it in a better way, then that means GMO food is bad.

(obviously nothing is bad or good. but you get the point)

Russian is right here. There are though plenty of other companies that market seeds.. However... The Monsantos of the world are buying these companies up left and right.. So beware and make sure that what you are buying is not GMO...if you are so inclined to buy that way...The more insidious part of this is that they are also at very high levels of the government... making agricultural policy. SICK!