It is currently Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:31 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:57 am
Posts: 4
Location: Fairfield, TX
Interesting report on GM crops

http://argument.independent.co.uk/comme ... ory=454758

Or this link may work better

http://www.independent.co.uk/

and look under Editor's Choice for Michael Meacher


Linda
Fairfield, TX


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: GMOs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 2
Linda,

I am currently studing GMOs and their manufacture and development. Some statements made by Meacher are unsubstantiated and most likely hearsay. The fact that some bacteria was transferred to the human gut was probably due to the GMO used was only for animal consumption (like cattle - ruminant). This is the problem we are discussing about GMOs. We discussed that if a GMO is to be approved for the US market, then it needs to be for both human and animal consumption and not one or the other. The one gene "picked at random" is also untrue. The gene selected is the gene responsible for a certain response in the plant already and the gene is then overexpressed to increase the response. Meacher quoted the use of cotton bolls. The gene modified is actually a organically approved fungal organism (Bacillus thurengiensis) to combat the bollworm, a major pest of the cotton industry. The fungus directly attacks the bollworm. This same fungus is used in the organic industry to do the same but to more insects. The problem with this is that if the protein is not altered within the fungus, then some insects become resistant as with any other insecticide. One reason for the creation of Bt Cotton is to reduce the amount of pesticides used in fields. This is a good thing. So far more research is going on about this. I am torn about this GMO idea mainly because I have considered myself organic but I do see a use for this in the industry to achieve the goal of lowering the amount of pesticides sprayed in the field. I believe we all could do with a little less harmful pesticides.

Kris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Kris & GMO's
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
Kris: I think you have stumbled on the wrong website. We believe that we need no pesticides and no GMO's - no if ands or buts!
We know that 80%of soy beans are engineered to tolerate extra round- up. We don't need either one. Round up was just linked to cancer - are we surprised?????????/ No!!!!!!!!!! Before you are done you will be telling us that radiation will be good for us to eat!
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 10:59 am
Posts: 277
klm wrote:
I am currently studing GMOs and their manufacture and development.


Then you should be gravely concerned that none of the gmos has been qualified. To thoroughly ruin the day for an agribusiness geneticist, merely suggest that qualification should be required for genetically modified agricultural products. For now, statement that gmos are "safe" are unsubstantiated and/or hearsay. Most of us here are well aware of the Bt gene and its immediate effect on caterpillars. Noone anywhere knows what long-term effect gmos, and specifically the intensive and concentrated use of gmos, will have on the genome. The body of information that would provide that knowledge also would allow the elimination of cancer, which we obviously cannot do yet. For the uninitiated or confused, your mention of Bt implies that it is of fungal origin, which of course is not true and probably is not what you intended to write. As Robert wrote above, gmo crops so far have increased or have not reduced the total overall pesticide load, owing to the use of "Round-Up Ready" varieties. Whether this is a permanent or temporary condition is another question. It's funny in a way that the largest push for gmo food crops has helped and will help fuel the advance of obesity-related disease. Malthus and Murphy were quite the jokers.

As an aside about cotton, we as a country appear happy to buy all of the cotton fabric products that China will ship over, notwithstanding the enormous pesticide, fertilizer, and industrial inputs that are involved in the production of that material. Anyone concerned about how cotton becomes a shirt simply should buy certified organic cotton products. Here in the United States of Entertainment and Appearance, more pretty seems to trump fewer/better. A visit to the clothing department of any thrift shop emphasizes that concept in spades. The chances are high that some of every dollar we spend on conventional cotton fabrics goes to Monsanto and its analogs. Don't like it? Don't buy them.

_________________
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they aren't -- lament of the synthetic lifestyle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:17 am
Posts: 15
Next thing we should be genetically modified to tolerate our food.......hmmm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:12 pm
Posts: 111
Location: San Antonio,TEXAS
Sorry I have to comment on this. I am disappointed that not one but, two "moderators" jumped all over the post by klm. Everyone here is entitled to express their opinion or thought and should not be harrassed because of it. If you do then we will only get information from one side. This then rapidly becomes a non-discussion, and that does not further education. Through good, tempered, factual and non emotional discussions will people become informed and make (what I hope) are good decisions on organic farming and the use of organics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:01 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:45 pm
Posts: 2884
Location: San Antonio,TEXAS
In defense of the moderators, ahem, we tend to be the most prolific writers on this list. Genetically modified organisms have no place in organic gardening. That's just about all there is to it. Never mind that we have been "improving" genes for eons by selective breeding and cross breeding, we all know what we're talking about when we are talking about the scientific modifications in GMOs.

So, since this is an organic website about organic farming issues (which GMOs is not an organic farming issue other than to be sure we aren't aiding and abetting them), what would be the reason someone would lay this flaming, turd-filled bag on our doorstep? The only reason would be to incite a reaction from the opposition. So KLM is getting it. Nobody has said KLM cannot reply or defend the position. It's not real clear that KLM has a position.

Personally I think the GMO issue itself is resolved in organic doctrine. I see nothing left to discuss after that. Unfortunately GMO materials tend to leak out into the wild including organic gardens and farms. Therefore, we must be vigilant in keeping pressure on to stifle the move toward more GMOs. Perhaps the referenced articles are good stimulation to revive our vigilance.

_________________
David Hall
Moderator
Dirt Doctor Lawns Forum


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: GMO
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
Dave: You cleared everything up as far as I am concerned. I do agree that this is a place to share knowledge, but I learn about GMO's from a lot of sources and I will only share when it is important to warn those of us who care about our health and environment.
By the way did anyone see the website www.themeatrix.com This was done very well for education of the "uninformed"
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 182
Location: Saginaw (NW Fort Worth), Texas
Very interesting website for The Meatrix, thank you very much. I have contacted a ranch in Grandview, TX to see about getting our meats from them. :) But first I am waiting for an email to see if they use synthetic chemicals on their grasses. I like the search feature to find stores by a variety of features you might look for.

Again, thanks!
Christina


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:15 pm
Posts: 1
The impact of GMO foods on humans and the environment is, at best, NOT well understood. Therefore, it's very discourgaing to see that GMO crops have achieved the "default" status in terms of food labelling. Nowadays, it seems far easier to find "organic" than "GMO-free" food. So, here comes the question: does an organic certification gaurantee the GMO-free-ness of the product? The question that popped up specifically was about organic meat products. Does the current standards of organic food certification maintain that organic meat and dairy products come from herds which are fed with GMO-free feeds?

I did some search on the web, and found no definite answer on this. In some cases, it looks like GMO-free is implied by organic labelling. But it's doubtful that the GMO-free has been explicitly spelled out as a major pivotal point for the very definition of "organic".

_________________
http://www.crossvoice.com
stories, opinions and reviews on stuff interesting


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:53 pm
Posts: 39
Location: Creston B.C. Canada
Does anyone else see something wrong with what has happened here
Quote:
So, since this is an organic website about organic farming issues (which GMOs is not an organic farming issue other than to be sure we aren't aiding and abetting them), what would be the reason someone would lay this flaming, turd-filled bag on our doorstep? The only reason would be to incite a reaction from the opposition. So KLM is getting it. Nobody has said KLM cannot reply or defend the position. It's not real clear that KLM has a position.

I realize this is water under the bridge but I'm dissapointed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:30 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Dalhart, Texas
Quote:
does an organic certification gaurantee the GMO-free-ness of the product?

This isn't an answer. I am just relating to the question. With respect to Coka-Cola, I was suprised when I found there is a Diet Coke and a Caffeine Free Diet Coke. What the? Why not just have one kind of diet coke? Sheesh. With respect to organic food, is there "Organic" and a "GMO-free Organic" food?

Oh, and Round-Up causes cancer? I wonder when they'll change they're mind like they have done with the yoke of an egg. Yoke is good. Yoke is bad. Yoke is good. Yoke is bad. Yoke is good. Sheesh. Make up your mind ya freak'n research people.

The fact is people are scared of the unknown and rightfully so. Watch one day. I will not be surprised when the researchers find a GMO product that is as healthy as an organic product with the same long-term affects as organic products. Or maybe this is impossible? Wait a second. Isn't soybeans the most genetically modified crop? Yet Soy Milk is the best there is. Or maybe that was how it was a year ago but not now. Grrr.

In regards to the round-up ready soybeans, farmers use these type of GMO crops so they can bring some bread home to eat. Weeds, pests, and diseases can seriously hurt a farmer's bottom line if not controlled, and if organic controls are not expensive, why aren't they readily available? Hmm. Maybe the resellers for the organic controls are far and few.

Cross-breeding of GMO crops is serious and should not be underestimated, but lets not ignore the impact GMO crops have on farmer's bottom line.

Oh and. Lets blame all of the bad stuff like obesity on GMO or non-organicly grown crops. Then again, becoming obese must be harder to accomplish if we eat only organicly grown crops.

I think in a few hundred years or until a catastrophe occurs (like in Europe with the mad-cow epidemic) will we all understand how chemicals hurt the planet and "organically grown" stuff is the only best thing we can eat in the United States.

I know when I inherit the farm I will slowly integrate it towards organics. (If I can still make the same profit. And crop yield usually is directly related with profit). Honestly, I think education and reseller accessibility is why the organic market isn't bigger than what it should be. Someone needs to start a chain of stores like Wal-Mart, but this nationwide Wal-Mart sells only organic products and services.

Welp. This is my two-cents of rambling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: organic vs
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 7:04 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 420
Location: Whitesboro,TX
The good guys - that would be use common
folk - won two big rounds this week.
The first was Merek took Vioxx off the drug
shelves. Vioxx and celebrix and that family
of drugs kills 100,000 of us each year and
the FDA does nothing as their job is to protect
the drug companies profits - not our lives.
Someone figured out that Vioxx also causes
heart attacks in 30% of the users after 18
months. You can bet the execs at Merek
whined and cried about how they were going
to loose billons of profits and they didn't want
to give that up. Then the lawyers came to the
rescue - well not the rescue the of us common
folks, but to the rescue of Merek as they pointd
out that the heart attacks would be published.
They explained that if they reminded the media
how much they spend on advertizing and they
didn't want the negative stuff to be aired that
even the corrupt media companies (who don't
want to loose on penny on drug advertizing) could
not stop this story. They also explanied that the
law suits might end up at billons of dollars and
they might only break even - at our expense.
I do feel sorry!

The second win this week was the article on soy
beans at www.newfarm.org. It seems that farmers
are paying a primium for Roundup ready soy beens
because of the promise of more beans and less
weeds with some extra Roundup, but surprise,
surprise, the production is going down and there
are super weeds that are harder to kill and extra
roundup is costing more and farmers profits are
goiong down.
So what is the solution - go back to non GMO beans
or get the government - that would be us common
folks - -to subsidize the well fare industrial farm
complex so that Monsanto can make more money?
I am sure tha if we wait and watch in the next few
months the answer will come out.
While on the subject of soy beans, did any one ever
think what the phyto-estrogens (formula, etc) in soy
might do to males that consume these products. This
is not an answer, but a question. Could soy cause
some males to become homosexual?? Estrogen
doesn't seem like a good idea in infants.
GMO was not developed for feeding the world.
They we developed to feed the profits of large companies
while they destroyed all the non-GMO seeds in the world. We as
a nation can not feed ourselves - we have to import
14% of our food from other nations. I believe that
in time we will find out that GMO will cause more
starvation in the world and maybe here at home.
I am just a reporter and I am reporting that us good
guys won two this week. We have a long way to go!!!
Robert D Bard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:30 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Dalhart, Texas
Quote:
Could soy cause some males to become homosexual??

I guess the nutritionists best stop recommending Soy Milk as a good source of nutrients, if this is remotely true. As horseranch mentions, I think it's not as good as they say according to the Price Foundation.

Quote:
we have to import 14% of our food from other nations.

Or maybe because 14% of the consumer base will not eat specific United States produce.

Quote:
GMO was not developed for feeding the world.

Quite the reverse. I believe these engineers are doing this to help everyone, but unfortunately, greed, politics, and "nature boys" blur this side of the coin causing all sorts of disastrous stuff. Have you ever worked on a corporate project that later failed because of some idealistic or impatient or greedy type of manager?

I think GMO based products will be regulated, improved, or removed once the ethanol-based vehicles start to represent a noticeable chunk in the automobile market. I also think this will only happen once everyone is educated and the proper resellers are easily accessible.


Last edited by crsublette on Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:06 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:41 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Austin
Quote:
I guess the nutritionists best stop recommending Soy Milk as a good source of nutrients, if this is remotely true.


Soy is not a good source of nutrients. Among other things, it has compounds that interfere with thyroid function. If you look at how societies traditionally ate soy, it was fermented and in SMALL quantities. The way it's been promoted now is actively unhealthy. I speak both from having read a lot about it (the Weston Price Foundation has a lot of good articles -- check out http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truth ... s_soy.html as a start), and from the personal experience of having my thyroid crash after 6 months of substituting real food with soy :(

Quote:
In regards to the round-up ready soybeans, farmers use these type of GMO crops so they can bring some bread home to eat. Weeds, pests, and diseases can seriously hurt a farmer's bottom line if not controlled, and if organic controls are not expensive, why aren't they readily available? Hmm. Maybe the resellers for the organic controls are far and few.


Many organic controls are not well-suited to easy marketing. For instance, aerobic compost tea does not store well, which make selling it difficult; also, it works better if you customize it to your soil/plants, making it downright impossible to mass produce. Etc., etc.

If you move away from large-scale farming, where the cost of the equipment and inputs are spread over thousands of acres, the only people I know making a living at farming are those doing it organically and/or grass-based (for livestock). It's only partially courtesy of the higher price they can demand for their product, it's also the lower cost of the inputs. BUT it takes knowledge, skill, and man-hours. Organic farming is not simply spraying something besides Roundup. You have to look at things like companion planting and crop rotation. You have to pay attention to your soil, and learn to read the signals provided by plant and animal health. It's not easy, and it's not something farmers are taught anymore. And who's going to fund the agricultural schools to teach it?

Judith


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by eWeblife