GM crops myth

[FurthurBB]

Feeding the world with GM food is a myth push on the general population for a buck and control over the masses just like Obamacare, and The National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

Exposed: the great GM crops myth

Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

Note: Permission to reprint, repost or forward the following article in full is granted, but only if it is not edited or excerpted.
From the Editors of SurvivalBlog.com
The National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

The USDA and the Agrobiz giants have been crafting a national animal identification scheme that threatens the traditional freedom of self sufficiency, the privacy of Americans, and the livelihood of organic farmers, and family farms. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is the creation of the Agrobiz giants Monsanto, Cargill Meat, National Pork Producers, and others to monopolize American food production using fear tactics to advance their agenda. The NAIS scheme was not created by any act of congress. Rather, it is merely a presumptuous bureaucratic dictate.

The NAIS plan requires two types of mandatory registration for everyone who owns even just one “livestock” animal. Every person who owns even just one horse, donkey, chicken, pigeon, goat, llama, sheep, pig, cow, alpaca, duck, farmed fish, etc. must register their name, home address, telephone number and Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their home in a Federal database. Secondly, in order for any animal to leave its birth farm, the owner will be required to obtain a Federal ID number for it which will be kept in a national data base and have the animal biochipped. Animals will have to be registered if they leave the farm for any reason; to go on a trail ride, to go to a show or fair, to be bought or sold, to be bred by a stud on another farm, or to be taken to the local butcher, or anywhere else. The most likely type of ID will be a bio-microchip containing a low power radio transmitter so that the chips can be read from a distance. NAIS would allow “industry” to decide if retinal scans and DNA samples would also be required. Of course large scale Agrobiz has exempted itself from individual identification. (Agrobiz producers will be allowed to use one ID number for groups of hundreds or even thousands of animals that are raised and processed together.)
Americans will be required to report every time an animal enters or leaves their property, every time an animal loses a tag, every time a tag is replaced, the slaughter or death of an animal, or if an animal is missing. Such events must be reported in 24 hours or owners would suffer an as yet unspecified penalty. Small family farms and organic farmers will be driven out of business by the costs of premises registration fees, individual animal ID fees, event reporting fees, electronic tags or chips, electronic readers, home computers, Internet access, phone service, and reporting software. According to the USDA's plan all of these costs will be born by the animal owners.

NAIS might enhance Agrobiz’s export markets and allow tracing of animal movements to track disease outbreaks which is its stated goal. But it will not make the American consumer safer. The most common type of meat contamination in the United States is bacterial, such as E coli. and Listeria. It is not discovered until masses of people become ill. Since Agrobiz processes meat in huge packing plants with thousands of animals being slaughtered a day, NAIS is useless to determine if the contamination was from one animal, multiple animals, or unsanitary conditions at the packing plant itself. Contaminated meat from giant Agrobiz processor is sent to all 50 states endangering millions of consumers simultaneously. On the other hand family farms, organic farmers, and private citizens their animals in natural and healthy conditions because they are raising their animals for themselves and their neighbors’ tables. When they are driven out of the market, America’s food supply will become less safe not more so. The consolidation of America’s food supply by Agrobiz makes it more vulnerable to terrorists. As Americas meat industry becomes a giant monopoly where all meat is processed in a few giant packing plants then it becomes easier for terrorists to deliberately contaminate millions of pounds of meat in one attack.

I believe that many varieties of farm animals (not just rare breeds) will become extinct as individuals give up animal raising rather than submit to all the required fees and bureaucracy or agree to having their home pinpointed by satellite and their personal information put in a national database. The only animals that will survive will be those that Monsanto, Cargill and company deem the most profitable.

The USDA's NAIS Timeline:

• July, 2005: All States capable of premises registration.
• July, 2005: Animal Identification Number system operational.
• April, 2007: Premises registration and animal identification “alerts”.
• January, 2008: Premises registration and animal identification required.
• January, 2009: Reporting of defined animal movements required; entire program becomes mandatory.


I urge you to take immediate action in fighting the implementation of NAIS. Widespread objection by Americans can still stop the implementation of NAIS or at least create exemptions for religious objectors, home breeders, and/or small scale farmers and ranchers.

Please e-mail this posting to everyone that you know. Contact breed associations, organic and sustainable farming groups, neighbors, and family and ask them to oppose NAIS. Ask them to organize letter writing campaigns to the USDA. Write to your Federal and state legislators. Oppose any state level implementation of NAIS. (Some states such as Wisconsin are already implementing NAIS registration and biochipping.)

In particular, the USDA’s planned issuance of a NAIS rule for public comment in July 2006 will be a crucial juncture. Regular updates on the status of NAIS will be posted at SurvivalBlog.com. When the public comment period is open, submit an individual comment letter, strongly expressing your disapproval. Get involved, or our another piece of our precious liberty will slip away.

We used to go into Gary's store in Eagleville, MO fairly often. He died suddenly just a few months ago. Monsanto thug threatening him does not surprise me at all. Monsanto's rep, “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” Monsanto owns cargill, the CEO of Cargill was at WF as CEO until a few years ago, he was still on the borad last I had read. In our case WF just used the sheriff/have gun will travel here to do there dirty work.

Investigation
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
May 2008

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

Video worth watching.
The Funny Farm: MONSANTO IS WAY MORE EVIL THAN I EVER COULD HAVE IMAGINED

Oh geez, Monsanto is no more evil than any other large company in a free market economy out to make more money. They have been involved in more lawsuits than any other company on earth as both the defendant and the complainant. So many foods have been genetically modified you cannot make these kind of blanket statements. Broccoli was one the first genetically modified commercial foods, it is a cross between cauliflower and brussel sprouts in which mutations were introduced. Tribal people began genetically modifying all sorts of crops to make them produce more, be hardier, and not produce large teeth shattering seeds. There is not a single crop produced today that has not been genetically modified in some way or another. Now if you are talking about genetic engineering, that is direct manipulation of an organisms genome, that is more recent. Now, round-up resistant crops were the first genetically engineered crops, and yes they were engineered by the same people who produce round-up. They have been very successful crops. A lot of the crops we have tried to engineer to produce more, or be drought resistant have not been as successful as their genetically modified predecessors. We should be more careful about what we grow. Crops made the US the wealthy country it is today and farming is probably the best bet for a speedy economic recovery, though that is not what people want to hear. European countries are the biggest food importers because they cannot grow much and are very picky about what crops they will buy. The US should not coddle big companies like Monsanto, they have lots of money and plenty of lawyers, let them take care of themselves.

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually need to apologize to RodISHI.. When I read the link to the Round-up article, it was clear that a GM soy had been invented that was "Round-Up" tolerant. So there IS obvious linkage. But the article clearly also perverted any scientific facts by declaring effects on mice that had been INJECTED with the active ingredient. While any human absorption would come by way of digestion. And contrary to the article you posted --- there are MANY studies on ingested exposure to Round-Up. MOST of them govt -sponsored. And the fact is that 80% of the amount ingested is harmlessly passed in less than 24 hours.

This PRESUPPOSES that any systematic uptake of Round-Up purposely used NEAR the crops will remain in the plant at harvest and after processing. Lots of ifs there. And YES -- this GM variation sounds iffy to me. Not the most wonderful use of GM techniques.

HOWEVER -- if there was a substantial amount of the herbicide remaining in the food product after harvest and processing -- Monsanto would NEVER RISK huge lawsuits just to save a little extra field weeding. It's a guarantee that the fear of litigation is LARGER than any penalty that the regulators would ever heap on them..

 

[FurthurBB]

I actually need to apologize to RodISHI.. When I read the link to the Round-up article, it was clear that a GM soy had been invented that was "Round-Up" tolerant. So there IS obvious linkage. But the article clearly also perverted any scientific facts by declaring effects on mice that had been INJECTED with the active ingredient. While any human absorption would come by way of digestion. And contrary to the article you posted --- there are MANY studies on ingested exposure to Round-Up. MOST of them govt -sponsored. And the fact is that 80% of the amount ingested is harmlessly passed in less than 24 hours.

This PRESUPPOSES that any systematic uptake of Round-Up purposely used NEAR the crops will remain in the plant at harvest and after processing. Lots of ifs there. And YES -- this GM variation sounds iffy to me. Not the most wonderful use of GM techniques.

HOWEVER -- if there was a substantial amount of the herbicide remaining in the food product after harvest and processing -- Monsanto would NEVER RISK huge lawsuits just to save a little extra field weeding. It's a guarantee that the fear of litigation is LARGER than any penalty that the regulators would ever heap on them..

Roundup is an inhibitor of denovo aromatic amino acid synthesis. We do not make aromatic amino acids.

 

[flacaltenn]

I actually need to apologize to RodISHI.. When I read the link to the Round-up article, it was clear that a GM soy had been invented that was "Round-Up" tolerant. So there IS obvious linkage. But the article clearly also perverted any scientific facts by declaring effects on mice that had been INJECTED with the active ingredient. While any human absorption would come by way of digestion. And contrary to the article you posted --- there are MANY studies on ingested exposure to Round-Up. MOST of them govt -sponsored. And the fact is that 80% of the amount ingested is harmlessly passed in less than 24 hours.

This PRESUPPOSES that any systematic uptake of Round-Up purposely used NEAR the crops will remain in the plant at harvest and after processing. Lots of ifs there. And YES -- this GM variation sounds iffy to me. Not the most wonderful use of GM techniques.

HOWEVER -- if there was a substantial amount of the herbicide remaining in the food product after harvest and processing -- Monsanto would NEVER RISK huge lawsuits just to save a little extra field weeding. It's a guarantee that the fear of litigation is LARGER than any penalty that the regulators would ever heap on them..

Roundup is an inhibitor of denovo aromatic amino acid synthesis. We do not make aromatic amino acids.

OK -- but according to the labeling on existing product -- there are other suspected dangers to the endocrine and reproductive system.. Wouldn't want to bathe in the stuff just because I don't make aromatic amino acids like a plant does.

 

[FurthurBB]

I actually need to apologize to RodISHI.. When I read the link to the Round-up article, it was clear that a GM soy had been invented that was "Round-Up" tolerant. So there IS obvious linkage. But the article clearly also perverted any scientific facts by declaring effects on mice that had been INJECTED with the active ingredient. While any human absorption would come by way of digestion. And contrary to the article you posted --- there are MANY studies on ingested exposure to Round-Up. MOST of them govt -sponsored. And the fact is that 80% of the amount ingested is harmlessly passed in less than 24 hours.

This PRESUPPOSES that any systematic uptake of Round-Up purposely used NEAR the crops will remain in the plant at harvest and after processing. Lots of ifs there. And YES -- this GM variation sounds iffy to me. Not the most wonderful use of GM techniques.

HOWEVER -- if there was a substantial amount of the herbicide remaining in the food product after harvest and processing -- Monsanto would NEVER RISK huge lawsuits just to save a little extra field weeding. It's a guarantee that the fear of litigation is LARGER than any penalty that the regulators would ever heap on them..

Roundup is an inhibitor of denovo aromatic amino acid synthesis. We do not make aromatic amino acids.

OK -- but according to the labeling on existing product -- there are other suspected dangers to the endocrine and reproductive system.. Wouldn't want to bathe in the stuff just because I don't make aromatic amino acids like a plant does.

No, but bathing in it is a long way from spraying it on crops.

 

[hipeter924]

Don't eat microwave/movie popcorn either, it causes asthma and breathing problems.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, its about a business. If you want the benefits of GM crops, you have to pay for it, becuase the company spent money on it.

You don't have to have GM crops if you don't want to.

why should companies give their product away for free? How to make a profit if the selling of the seeds is a one time deal?

And scientist want to make foods more hearty, easier to grow. Not everybody is a corporate giant like monsanto, and GM crops can have wonderful benefits. Everything isn't some giant conpiracy

General Mills is not one of the companies that gave massive donations to Obama so they're open to attack.

Now, G.E. is Obama's butt-buddy so regardless if he helps them ban incandescent light-bulbs from the U.S. and then move all of their manufacturing jobs to China right afterward, they're golden cuz they're in the crew with all of the other usual suspects.

Solyndra showed us what happens when try to compete with foreign companies, even when you're propped up with millions of tax dollars. You can't make the product as cheap as your competitors. Result; you go bankrupt.

It's not a conspiracy so much as a crony-capitalism with the government invested in the competition for whatever it is you want, be it jobs, cash, or whatever.

This is why the government needs to get the hell out of picking winners and losers. They set the rules and if the rule don't work change them till they do. Interfering in commerce is a losing proposition and totally dishonest. The result is high unemployment which results in hundreds of occupiers pissing and shitting in our streets and generally making spectacles of themselves.

 

[NoNukes]

GM crops are helping to feed the world.

They haven't even realized the potential, thanks to European meddling and their ignorant fears of GM. Read a Scientist article about how European countries are influencing african nations to resist GM crops, plus the fact their isn't strong science in those countries, so they are already no informed and can be easiliy swayed.

Golden rice was ready to go 10 years ago, and nothing ever happend with it thanks to the irrational and ignorant fears of GM

Your use of the English language is pretty poor for a doctor.

 

[RodISHI]

I actually need to apologize to RodISHI.. When I read the link to the Round-up article, it was clear that a GM soy had been invented that was "Round-Up" tolerant. So there IS obvious linkage. But the article clearly also perverted any scientific facts by declaring effects on mice that had been INJECTED with the active ingredient. While any human absorption would come by way of digestion. And contrary to the article you posted --- there are MANY studies on ingested exposure to Round-Up. MOST of them govt -sponsored. And the fact is that 80% of the amount ingested is harmlessly passed in less than 24 hours.

This PRESUPPOSES that any systematic uptake of Round-Up purposely used NEAR the crops will remain in the plant at harvest and after processing. Lots of ifs there. And YES -- this GM variation sounds iffy to me. Not the most wonderful use of GM techniques.

HOWEVER -- if there was a substantial amount of the herbicide remaining in the food product after harvest and processing -- Monsanto would NEVER RISK huge lawsuits just to save a little extra field weeding. It's a guarantee that the fear of litigation is LARGER than any penalty that the regulators would ever heap on them..

I suppose you have not been near a creek when the farmer does what they call burn down. We have. Dead birds and fish right after runoff from the field adjadcent to the creek hit the creek. Disgusting oily herbacides and pesticides floating around with dead critters does not do much for me. The worst though was the article in the major paper the following week explaining those pretty harmless rainbows that you see in the water after the farmers spray their crops. Oh, excuse me after a rain not after the farmer sprayed the crops. Possibly you may want to check EPA or FDA and see the tolerances allowed for specific chemicals that are in the veggies and fruits spray with whatever chemical a manufacturer is putting out there before you start deciding they are not worried about lawsuits. EPA and FDA grants exceptional tolerances in food products already. They have a really cool search feature at EPA you can use to search it out. Only a few organization are fighting these giants and protesting those excessive allowances for pesticide products in food. An individual protesting really would not mean squat to the EPA or the FDA. Humans are allowed a certain amount of chemical products as far as our government quality control peeps go.
Monsanto, DOW, BASF or any other chemical giant out there could give a shit about being sued. Their whole thing would be that FDA and EPA approved of it ALL!

 

[RodISHI]

Those protesters can't be all bad!