Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by $ jlc 4 years, 10 months ago
    GMO and Organic are psychological scams, but anyone who wants to indulge themselves in those labels is welcome to do so.

    From Matt Ridley's Green Scare article:
    Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. After 20 years and billions of meals, there is still no evidence that they harm human health, and ample evidence of their environmental and humanitarian benefits. Vitamin-enhanced GM “golden rice” has been ready to save lives for years, but opposed at every step by Greenpeace. Bangladeshi eggplant growers spray their crops with insecticides up to 140 times in a season, risking their own health, because the insect-resistant GMO version of the plant is fiercely opposed by environmentalists. Opposition to GMOs has certainly cost lives.

    Besides, what did GMOs replace? Before transgenic crop improvement was invented, the main way to breed new varieties was “mutation breeding”: to scramble a plant’s DNA randomly, using gamma rays or chemical mutagens, in the hope that some of the monsters thus produced would have better yields or novel characteristics. Golden Promise barley, for example, a favorite of organic brewers, was produced this way. This method still faces no special regulation, whereas precise transfer of single well known genes, which could not possibly be less safe, does.

    Environmentalists are currently opposing neonicotinoid pesticides on the grounds that they may hurt bee populations, even though the European Union notes that honeybee numbers have been rising in the 20 years since they were introduced. The effect in Europe has been to cause farmers to return to much more harmful pyrethroid insecticides, which are sprayed on crops instead of used as seed dressing, hitting innocent bystander insects. And if Europeans had been allowed to grow GMOs, then less pesticide would be necessary. Again, green precaution increases risks.
    - See more at: http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-...

    The full article also addresses global warming and resistance to implementation of nuclear power.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ richrobinson 4 years, 10 months ago
    To me the key word is "choice". If I choose to eat organic or non GMO foods that is my choice. Why are growers of GMO foods so reluctant to label their product? In a free market the consumer would be offered a choice between the two and the sales volume would determine the rest.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 10 months ago
      Almost anything you eat has a GMO component. Why label? Everyone wants Monsanto to be the big evil. Thry are crony alright. But most of the cutting edge research is done at universities. Kansas State, db 's under graduate alma mater, for one. I mean if you are buying a tomato at the super market it 's seeds are GMO.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ richrobinson 4 years, 10 months ago
        Why not label. I always feel more information is better.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 10 months ago
          because it's amorphous. Hell, even heritage seeds have some genetic modification. I guess you'd have to draw an arbitrary line and say a particular year or strain. it makes more sense to say "organic" although I find that hugely ironic :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
            Hybrid, and cross pollination are not the same as genetically modified in a lab. Hybrid and CP does not introduce Genes that are foreign to the DNA of the plant.
            Just label it, that isn't asking a lot. Having a choice is never a bad thing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
            Heirloom seeds do not produce sterile plants. Nor have they the component that in theory makes them resistant to an herbicide, which then excuses the application of ever higher amounts of herbicide. Some of which inevitably finds its way to your dinnertable.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
              Tem... what I can't ever seem to find reported is any evidence to support your last sentence...

              Lacking that 'obvious proof,' I find it really difficult to support anti-GMO-folks' assertions of danger!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
                All right, here are some links:

                http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...

                http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...

                http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...

                http://search.mercola.com/results.asp...

                Question: would you drink Round-Up? Then why tolerate it in your food? Do you really think the industry washes it off completely?

                Part of individual rights is respect for the rights of others.

                The right of your neighbor to expect you not to pollute his soil, groundwater, etc.

                The right of your eventual customer to expect you not to poison him, either fast (acute) or slowly (chronic).

                The automatic and unwarranted assumption that no group of investors establishing a company, nor the management team they install to run it, would ever act out of negligent or reckless expediency--not to say panic or malice--has always been one of Objectivism's greatest failings. But this is less a failure of Objectivism than a failure of imagination, due diligence, and consistent application on the part of its students and practitioners.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                  https://gmoanswers.com/studies/iarc-c...

                  Nice Graphic, too... glyphosate is slightly more toxic than alcohol (the kind in your wine glass, according to THAT research.)

                  I'm a seriously skeptical guy when the links you provide come from one source, given all the data out there that's google-able.

                  I'm still skeptical. Can you change my mind?

                  Did you know that, because of lousy yields per acre, most "organic foods" are resource- and energy-wasters compared to "non-organic farms"?

                  I've been in a few cults in my time. I try to be VERY critical in my thinking when presented with "evidence."

                  I think that's a very nice aspect of Objectivism.

                  Cheers!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
                    And alcohol is a slow poison. Over time, it will kill you.

                    Do you doubt that glyphosphate might trigger cancer? I realize, of course, that people have trouble grasping how they can avoid cancer with simple measure that, nevertheless, they must apply every single day without fail. Perhaps you have "learned" that cancer hits you like some player at a cosmic shooting gallery--an unskilled player holding an inaccurate gun at that. But I submit that brings only cold comfort when one of that player's bullets strikes you. And the reason I come down hard on negligence in the face of cancer is: I lost my wife to cancer, I almost lost my mother to cancer, and I had an aunt I never knew because she died of cancer.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                      I lost both parents decades ago to heart disease and heart attack. I developed atrial fibrillation just a year or two ago; my brother developed it earlier this year... but he's 16+ years older than I am... go figure.
                      I lost an uncle to cancer and an aunt to Parkinson's.
                      All of our data are, to a degree, anecdotal. I sprayed my first home with malathion regularly to kill ants and have been exposed to gasoline and benzene back in the 'old days' of working on my cars.
                      I have not developed cancer.
                      While science is getting damned close to figuring out what REALLY causes cancer, the final answers haven't appeared yet.
                      I'm sorry to hear of your losses. Those are the kinds of things that create extreme sensitivity to certain things in people.
                      I found the lump in my wife's breast and she says "I saved her life"... but we haven't made any major life changes as a result... other than surgery, radiation and chemo... but they're not part of our daily lives today.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
                        The cancer statistics are pretty grim. Cancer incidence and prevalence seems to vary directly as the degree of industrialization. That suggests industrialization is exposing the population to slow poisons we don't even recognize as poisons.

                        The source I found also suggests ways to change one's diet to enhance the immune response to cancer, and to remove some of those slow poisons. So--back to my analogy of cancer to the player in the shooting gallery--we don't have to be sitting ducks, and can both armor ourselves and duck away from the bullets to some degree. Eating organic and non-GMO foods is a way to do both.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                          and if you were to plot the incidence of cancer on THIS graph, too... http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix...

                          One of the things you might conclude is that, 1) hockey-stick graphs can be VERY misleading, and 2) more people are dying from cancer today because life expectancies have "recently" increased to the point where people CAN DEVELOP cancer.... didn't happen when life expectancy was a few dozen years....

                          http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix...


                          Cheers!
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
                            That does not mean we give up and accept the rifle shots of the player in the shooting gallery as somebody we just ignore, knowing he can't hit everybody and "chances are" he won't hit us.

                            Ayn Rand died of lung cancer because she smoked like a chimney. Once she received the diagnosis, she stopped. But by then she had done damage she could not reverse.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                              Absolutely! And my dad smoked, probably compromising the future for his heart, too. And mom never smoked. And I smoked pipe but quit some 40+ years ago. Did that encourage my a-fib? Maybe, but my brother didn't smoke.

                              Ayn Rand died of lung cancer.... Fact.
                              Ayn Rand 'smoked like a chimney'... "Fact."

                              Correlation? Maybe. Causation? We don't know for sure yet. Some recent discoveries make it look like cancer may be 'caused' by some stem-cell malfunction... long before GMOs or nicotine could be blamed... unless Mom smoked... OR Didn't ... during pregnancy.... Or her mom did... Or, or, or...

                              I don't support assumptions or conclusions until theories can be experimentally tested and proven.... somewhat Objectivist of me? I like to attribute it to innate skills plus training in Engineering and Scientific Methods.

                              Or maybe it's genetic... or...

                              Do You See My Point Yet????????????
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 10 months ago
                                Now how about my own point about avoiding things that can't do your cells any good--and embracing things that might steel your body to ward bad things off?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                                  Have you ever run into the "J-Curve" and how it relates to 'toxic' or dangerous substances?

                                  At some low concentrations, the body doesn't recognize a threat and can be damaged by it.
                                  At a high concentration, the body is overwhelmed and may succumb.
                                  And sometimes, at some larger-than-tiny concentration, the body defends itself and survives quite well.

                                  YMMV, again... Or in the terms I learned in a grad school Business Law course, the right answer is Very Often, "It Depends."

                                  :)
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Temlakos replied 4 years, 10 months ago
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 10 months ago
    I make a point of avoiding things labeled organic and non-GMO. It's good for my pocketbook and good for the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 10 months ago
      We agree from the start!!!! That subject came up yesterday in my south of the border current location. One of the tiangas open air markets held on Sunday has a lot of what by definition are organic foods. The comment was made they aren't marketed that way it's because they can't afford fertilizer.

      That's a good thing. I remember in Korea in the 1960s we were told not to eat the food because they used human waste as fertilizer which is not used locally.

      Growing up we routinely rotated livestock into different fenced areas as part of the crop rotation plan. Why buy fertilizer when we had our own mobile production and distribution system?

      In Korea Encephalitis was one of the dangers

      Here in latin america we just use an extra heavy dose of salsa followed by a good burp.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 10 months ago
        Lots of lime too :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 10 months ago
          and canela in the coffee! Being of sounder mind in a lot of ways down here they also have readily available medicines such as avapena in injection form for a particular nasty form of avispa or wasp. The society isn't all wrapped up in worries about needles and other uses. That's present as it is anywhere but primarily it's a gringo side of the border problem. the use of natural medications however is for the same reason as growing what yankees would call organic foods. Cost of medicine or fertilizer or anything else. And that with medical costs about 40% I reckon of north of the border. It's living better due to both cultural and economic reasons. For those of us raised outside the cities it's an easy adaption. Expensive bee pollen and honey related products are readily available in season as one example.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 10 months ago
    If you had truly non-GMO food for sale, no one would buy it. Just take corn for example. What the Indians SORRY! Native Americans taught the Puritans to enjoy were multi-colored stunted looking things with only about half the kernels edible. Tomatoes? In their original form they were so icky looking they were considered poisonous being a relative of the Mandrake plant. I could go on, but you get the point. We have been genetically modifying vegetables since we first discovered the were cookable. The fact that we can do it scientifically, quickly, with good result should be applauded. However, if You don't want to eat it, don't tell Me that I can't.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
      Wanna really have fun? Read the Freakonomics series for their comments on 'organic' foods.

      Seems like organic farming yields are so low per acre and per acre-foot of water used that we'd all really be starving if all crops were suddenly to go All-"Organic".... unintended consequences due to lack of data, anyone? They're fun reading, too....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 10 months ago
    Genetic modification isn't new. The biggest genetic modification project in human history was the development of corn from a common grass. Pre-Columbian society in Central America created that miracle, and native populations exploded. Corn was the mainstay of the MIssissippian culture, with its mound cities and a continent-wide trading network. The downside of corn is that it returns few nutrients to the soil, which is part of the cause of the collapse of native societies in the Americas, since they didn't entirely understand the crop cycle. There ain't no free lunch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
      that was cross pollination, not direct manipulation of genes. BIG difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 10 months ago
        Yes, with cross pollination you don't actually know what the genetic content of the resultant hybrid is. It's a matter of luck. With genetic modification you know what you are doing.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 10 months ago
        Nonetheless, it was manipulation of genes that resulted in dramatic changes. When we start engaging in cross-species genetic mixing things become more uncertain, and are only possible with modern technology.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
          I disagree. Fish DNA would never naturally occur in Plant DNA. This is forced gene splicing.
          Keep in mind, our arrogance is what created the Killer African honey bee.
          I do not trust Monsanto, or the like, to modify a seed for health and nutrition over economics of growing a crop. I do not trust the FDA to ensure it's safe to eat.
          GMO has NEVER been put through long term trials. WE are the trial. I choose not to be a lab rat. I want to know what I'm eating. That label doesn't cost a dime to print.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
            And would you please be the first to get agreement on what "Long Term Trial" would satisfy you?
            Five Years, Ten? Two Generations of humans? Ten generations? Using a nebulous, unspecified "standard" to judge success or failure of a proposition or theory is... well... kinda silly, y' know?
            :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 10 months ago
              The regulators make that decision along with al lthe implementing regulations.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                and if they don't share that info, I don't trust them.
                There was an old joke going around a generation or two ago that "after five or ten generations, acetylsalicylic acid causes permanent infertility in all users.... "

                But "aspirin" hadn't been in use that long, so there was no way to prove the fear was grounded in reality or not... :)

                So, with no clear definition of 'long term effects,' I conclude the 'advice' is worth less than the electrons it was transmitted on.

                I'm open to new input, though... if there ever is any... :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 10 months ago
                  turned out to be a good blood thinner
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                    in moderation... I'm on 'baby aspirin' for my afib, but if I took a whole regular aspirin every day, my hemorrhoids would bleed out...

                    As I tell the pre-op bariatric folks I talk to every month... "Everybody Is Different. AND Every Body Is Different"... my version of YMMV... :)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
        Funny, Robert... but 'not direct manipulation of genes' as an argument strikes me somehow like 'the ends are good or bad, depending on the means' which just sounds silly to me.
        But hey, that's me, again... :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
          Condsidering we're 20 years into station drugs and those are showing problems, 20 is a good start. Better yet, just f'in label it. Explain to me me why that's a problem. That's all I ask for. Give me the choice. Why do you want to take that knowledge away from me?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
            statins? Yep, I'm trying to get my doc to wean me off them, too, though I haven't seen any bad side effects in the 3-4 years I've been on 'em...

            Labeling? CERTAINLY... but so many advocates seem to be coming from a position of "controlling" that it discourages me from being supportive. Maybe some of THEM could change Their "labeling"... :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
              "Controlling"?? I don't know about that.

              Statins: My mother was on statins for awhile. Then one day, I was walking through the mall with her and she said she couldn't continue, it felt like she was walking through water. she had test run and they couldn't find anything. They concluded it was a "uncommon form of ALS". 1 month after she first started having problems she was using a scooter to get around. within 3 months she was mostly bed-ridden.
              9 months after first had this problem, she died. We're convinced it was Statins. Note their claim of "Muscle pain or weakness"
              Statins have not been proven to provide any benefit.
              I do not trust the AMA, CDC, FDA, USDA, or any other gov't agency - they are overrun with special interest.
              There has been plenty of studies of GMO on rats - and they didn't live. There has been ZERO studies on Human.
              "Scientific Consensus" is not science. Just like Climate change, we're being told to Sit Down, shut up, and eat our peas.
              It gets real simple, if Monsanto can produce a crop that bugs won't eat, why should we eat it?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                And, as I repeatedly ask, are the GMO "experiments" on humans that are so scary the ones where rats eat GMO SEEDS or where Humans Eat Plant Products GROWN From GMO Seeds????

                I can detect a difference between the two 'theories' or "experimental processes."

                Apparently, the mainscream media can't, and a LOT of folks believe the MSM....
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
                  There has been no human trials.
                  There is sufficient data to raise concern and warrent further study before releasing this wide spread. There's also the problem of Monsanto being able to sue a farm whose crop they contaminated with their pollen. That is very wrong.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                    I believe that Monsanto's lawsuit was against a farmer or farmers who kept aside GMO SEEDS for use in subsequent plantings, which was a breach of contract with Monsanto specified at original purchase.

                    Hm?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ RobertFl 4 years, 10 months ago
                      That is one case. There are others.

                      http://www.naturalblaze[dot]com/2015/09/hawaii-sees-tenfold-increase-in-birth.html

                      http://www.naturalnews[dot]com/051169_The_Atlantic_Kevin_Folta_bad_journalism.html

                      Fact is, information is being withheld from us regarding GMO.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                        And fairly clearly to THIS Engineer, the Question Is: Is it the GMO Crops or the increased amount of PESTICIDES THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS.

                        Sorry for shouting, but blaming GMO foods Directly for Birth Defects smells like the worst kind of conspiracy theory and the worst kind of Critical Thinking yet...

                        Demand or protest that "Some Other Place" (nimby, of course) be used for such testing!!! But again, it's NOT the GMO-ness of the crops that are 'causing the problem.'

                        Jeez...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 10 months ago
      ... and not much nutrition in corn. Read about the colonies of Cahokia. They raised corn for the central city, and ate only corn themselves, even though hunting was widely available. The skeletons all show deformities from malnutrition. Corn has a place at the dinner table, but it is not a good staple. Moreover, most of it is grown, not for food, but for high fructose corn syrup, which is not food at all, but is in the mainstream diet.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 4 years, 10 months ago
    My wealthy daughter-in-law is a fanatic about organics and non-GMOs since having kids and insists they've made a huge difference in her oldest's mood and behavior.
    Poor kid; lives on a steady diet of rabbit food and cardboard.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ken503 4 years, 10 months ago
    I don't have a problem with either non-organic or GMO foods in any way shape or form. Modern farming techniques, including chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified crops combined are responsible for the fact that we use less arable land and employ fewer people for agriculture, yet produce more food than at any time in our world's history. If those are bad things, then call me crazy.

    That being said, I think the labeling of such foods is important for it allows for more consumer choice. Having more choices is ultimately a good thing as well. I don't believe that this sort of labeling should be mandated however.

    I think part of the surge in popularity over organics, or non-gmo foods has been driven by a more heightened awareness of where our food comes from. As we all have moved further away from an agrarian existence, a profound disconnect between the consumer and their food supply has formed. Most people really don't have any idea where the foods they consume every day come from, how they got there, how they were processed, etc. Awareness and education are good for the consumer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dekayz 4 years, 10 months ago
    As has been stated multiple times so far, it is about the choice. If I want to shell out the extra $ for organic or non-GMO food, it's my choice. If I think it's stupid to do so, that is my choice as well. It doesn't matter whether I'm doing it because I think it's healthy or whether I think the companies who are producing it are evil. It's called "free market". I get to choose what to buy. If enough people choose to buy that product, the producer survives. If not, he has to find another line of work. I don't want the government to tell me that I can only buy non-GMO products and I don't want them to tell me that I can't buy them. Let me decide.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 10 months ago
    I have studied this for many years and developed a small list of 'who do you listen to' together with personal experience.
    The results have been in for quite a while now.
    Eat organic non GMO food; however, not all organic is organic in the true sense thanks to the government regulations and yes, some do charge a premium for the privilege. (thanks a lot).
    I also follow the right4yourtype bloodtype diet and it has change my life and allowed me to live past Everyone in my family.
    The best body of work on GMO's I have found thus far is: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth by Steven M. Drunker. It gives you the whole story from the beginning and the mindless sets involved. It's very detailed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 10 months ago
    From Liberty Voice: "While Monsanto is celebrating increased profits and earnings results, those concerned about the health and well-being of bee colonies remain troubled about the company’s track record of killing bees. We all depend on bees to pollinate our plant food, as does Monsanto. Yet the agribusiness colossus continues to undertake activities which appear to be decimating bee populations throughout the world.

    Colony Collapse Disorder is a major threat to all of us. Studies estimate that nearly one-third of the honeybee population has been wiped out." -- http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/monsant...

    From ProLiberty (reprinted from the Idaho Observer)"
    "In July, 2007, the German corn crop was infested with the rootworm. The German government ordered that every possible method should be used to eradicate this pest, including the use of clothianidin. Shortly after the seeds were planted, in May of 2008, some 330-million bees abruptly died.

    According to the German Research Center for Cultivated Plants, 29 out of 30 dead bees had been killed by direct contact with clothianidin." -- http://proliberty.com/observer/200904...

    From Prison Planet / Infowars:
    "The Illinois Ag Dept. illegally seized privately owned bees from renowned naturalist, Terrence Ingram, without providing him with a search warrant and before the court hearing on the matter, reports Prairie Advocate News.
    Behind the obvious violations of his Constitutional rights is Monsanto. Ingram was researching Roundup’s effects on bees, which he’s raised for 58 years. “They ruined 15 years of my research,” he told Prairie Advocate, by stealing most of his stock." -- http://planet.infowars.com/health/bee...

    Motley Fool remains cautious:
    "At this point, we cannot say that neonics alone are the leading contributor to honey bee population declines. That doesn't necessarily let Bayer and Syngenta off the hook for their use of neonics, or Monsanto for its use of pesticides that could have unintended effects on honey bees, but investors and consumers need to remember that multiple factors play a role in fluctuating bee populations. Parasitic fungi, parasitic mites, pesticides, temperature, and more likely combine to put pressure on honey bee colonies -- so it's irresponsible to focus on any one culprit in this case. For now, it appears that neonics are as risky as their current labels suggest. Nothing more, and nothing less." -- http://www.fool.com/investing/general...

    The crop in question is corn (maize). While corn does have a place at the table, most of it is grown to produce high fructose corn syrup, perhaps the worst of all common "food" products.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 10 months ago
      First of all GMO means genetically modified organisms, it is not a specific product. Clearly it is possible to create products that have unfortunate aspects. It's a tool, it can be misused.

      That being said it's not clear that colony collapse disorder is actually a growing problem or if there was a spike a couple of years ago. They seem to be recovering both here and in Europe. And if it is, the involvement of neonics is still under study.

      You are mixing issues, since Roundup is not a genetically modified organism, it's a pesticide -- basically you are going for the "Monsanto is Evil" argument and using it against GMO technology.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 4 years, 10 months ago
        There is a lot going on here, William, I just want to point out that the GMO component is the corn (maize) being protected by the pesticide. The corn is a highly tailored product that apparently cannot survive without the pesticides.
        "“Since GE farming and neonicotinoid pesticides are here to stay, we first tried to modify the bees as to increase their immune system to these insecticides, with little or no success” admits the specialist." -- http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/genet...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 10 months ago
          The corn can survive, but one of the benefits of it is that it uses less pesticide -- which is why it's good for the planet. Non GMO corn needs more externally applied pesticide for the same yield.

          And, do you realize you are quoting a parody site as evidence?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 10 months ago
      No shortage of bees south of the border. Another benefit of not being able to afford heavy doses of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers.

      Sounds like Germany chose the DDT solution without bothering to find out Rachel Carson was a mass murderer in the end.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 10 months ago
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 10 months ago
        Disclaimer: I disagree with blindly buying unlabeled produce, so I am biased, too. ;^)

        C'mon, kh, the Post as a reliable source?
        Not in this lifetime.
        That writer's work doesn't give any reassurance either. Looks almost all politically motivated.
        This article looks like typical "don't worry, be happy", sweep it under the rug, and business as usual corrupt administration line to me. The question should be, why are the bees dying, and is it related to chemical insecticides or other man-made products.
        The rest of the question is: what other effects have been glossed over or hidden or were longer term than the tests of the manufacturers? the article doesn't answer the questions that matter.
        I do not have a problem with all GMO foods, and although there will be a cost to labeling, to paraphrase the fedgov, if they don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?
        Monsanto does have something to hide and they are using every unethical tool they can to avoid the consequences of their actions.
        Q: Why is the fedgov protecting Monsanto? A:The fedgov are bought and paid for.
        Assuming a fair trial and if found guilty by the market, if Monsanto was bankrupted over this, would research and dev on GMO's stop? NO, the honest competitors would flourish, and all the researchers at monsanto would find other work.
        It's little different from TBTF banks being protected. Its corrupt, and it should face the court of the free market without protection from looters.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 10 months ago
          well the chart is based on Dept of Ag stats. I just look at the stats, not the words :)
          I always mention the crony relationship Monsanto has with the govt. No different than any other major corp-
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 10 months ago
            Sorry, I lapsed in my post. Meant to mention the source of the stats was fedgov, too.
            As is the case too often, those who oppose business also often exaggerate the situation.
            With the power that they are facing, it's understandable but it can destroy their credibility and provide cover for the cronies they try to oppose.
            The free market is the best judge in the long run if there is also reliable information for consumers; that speaks in favor of fair labeling of product content.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
              And what followed your "Q" in the post above seemed to go "judge, jury and executioner" based on the Question, not any proof of guilt. Makes it hard to "+1" a post like that... for me, anyway.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 10 months ago
                No worries, plusaf. We all have to think for ourselves based on evidence from sources we think reliable. Assuming your comment is on the 'A' part of my post, yes,I think the fedgov is corrupt. The comment I made after that, I think made it clear that the market should be the judge of GMO products, assuming the producers fully disclose content and results of product testing in clear language with the same emphasis as positive marketing claims. That is, they should not be similar to pharmaceutical tv advertising with their over emphasis on positive claims, de-emphasis on side effects, and their cuddly cartoon characters to subliminally convey innocence. ;^)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
                  Violent agreement! I've liked the idea that some kind of NGO based on some of the same foundations as Consumer's Union/Reports... a subscription-supported fact-evaluating organization with minimal bias (or supported openly by very biased subscribers... let that same Market answer THAT question...) would be much better, but alas, nobody's taken up that baton.

                  Yep, I've concluded that corruption isn't unique to businesses OR government(s). It may be a genetic or species-defect, but power over others seems to be the source of most 'evil' on this planet, and government is one of the most fertile breeding grounds for growing such power.

                  I love searching for Root Cause of Problems, but again, that one might have had its roots in Earth's primordial 'soup.'

                  Good luck to us all...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 10 months ago
                    I have thought that multiple competing subscription services would be the method for evaluating a free market in currencies from many innovators backed by assets of many kinds (to replace a single fraudulent fiat currency backed by nothing and enriching only corrupt banksters at the expense of all producers.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Katlevy 4 years, 10 months ago
    Personally, I buy organic products when they are available, especially if they are grown and harvested to be sold locally. Healthy food is the medicine of my family. We are all healthy and happy w/o any pharmaceutical intervention. Hope to continue this saga for the rest of our lives. Time will tell if I was correct, yes?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 10 months ago
      Absolutely! And I've been reading three or so of the Freakonomics books and some of the data they analyzed and drew 'economics type conclusions' from are relevant to your post above. I recommend the series.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by oolabob 4 years, 10 months ago
    I don't give a hoot about organic, it's just another word to make Liberals feel good about themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RichardDavey 4 years, 10 months ago
      Wrong oolabob! Do your home work! We are being controlled by chemical companies! They have compromised for profit and population control! Wake up then get involved! You can make a difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by oolabob 4 years, 10 months ago
        Sorry Richard, that's something I would expect from some on the other side of the fence. I am 70 years old, and you would not believe the things I have eaten in my life time, and I really have never been sick a day in my life. Chemistry is wonderful!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RichardDavey 4 years, 10 months ago
          Thank you for your response however if you do a little research you will find the early 90s is when they infiltrated our food system with GMO and GE frank-in food! In the process of playing God they have stripped the nutrients from the ground and have added chemicals that have no value for our bodies! If you would like to learn more go to Mercol.com and read altered genes and twisted truths. It is population control it is the very root of cancer and many autoimmune disease you have been lied too. Our health care is managed disease care! As aside my Dad is 79 and believes what you do It is a slow gradual death kinda like what the progressive movement has done regarding our government and our lives! I am a constitutional conservative and am 55.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 4 years, 10 months ago
    It’s a nice idea to develop crops that are disease and pestilence free. We could feed the world. The problem is GMO food crops have become so prevalent and are becoming our primary source of food --what happens if an unforeseeable disease comes along that only affects GMO crops? It could literally wipe out the world’s ability to feed people overnight.

    Silly or serious --choice is always good.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 10 months ago
    Much of it is raising prices for a fad driven by zealots and conspiracy theorists, but sometimes there is food coming from dubious sources grown by dubious methods for which "organic" is a healthier substitute. Consumer Reports May 2015, p 31 published a table of fruits and vegetables to what to watch out for and what reputable sources to look for.

    "Non-GMO" is for anti-technology phobics opposed to genetic variations that produce superior food in taste, storage, etc. Most seeds you buy for a vegetable garden are hybrid varieties, dogs are bred for superior traits and special breeds (but don't eat them!), etc. They are all "genetically modified".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 10 months ago
    There is no evidence GMO foods are dangerous. I'm open to new evidence, but for right now I don't see the point in avoiding them.

    With organic, my understanding is it depends on the food. The standards for making something organic are not necessarily the best standards for quality food or protecting the environment, although they often overlap. My wife researched this a little and thinks she knows which products are best. Sometimes their "organic", but not always. It's not as simple as just buying all organic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbuckwalter 4 years, 10 months ago
    If you want a real example of a dangerous fraud take a look behind the curtain at "organic" foods. There's a great book on food called The Omnivorous Dilemma that I would recommend. Not a treatise on GMO, but a good insight into our food supply which is becoming more fragile every day. The bottom line is that with our current population growth, and without significant continued productivity improvements in crop production, famine will solve the problem in a most brutal fashion. I'm an Agronomist and have an above average understanding of the GMO process. While there are some legitimate concerns they are controllable. The objections I see trotted out in opposition to GMOs seem to be driven by a bunch of ill informed Luddites. These people have ancestors who riled against electricity and the wheel. Let's see how many starving children turn down a bowl of rice because it contains GMOs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 4 years, 10 months ago
    I have a small farm and I think there are some differences to organic, not sure they really make a difference.

    GMO is nothing new really. We just went from splicing trees together to grow a new apple, or grape to doing it in a lab. More technological but the same basic premise.

    In a non-organic farm we test the PH levels in soil and water to get just the right nutrients to maximise production. Nothing wrong with this but the byproduct is that differences in the chemical makeup of the food will lesson or be completely gone. Carrot A will be identical in what its got in it with the rest of the carrots, or at least much closer. In organic farming the variations in nutritional value will be there within the same batch of carrots far more so. Does that have any effect on the value of the food to our body? It could if the variations in the foods we eat are what keep us from developing allergies, like variations in the gloves doctors use keep from developing latex allergies as much. It is a stretch but its the only thing I have come up with that may make a difference.

    Basically its a marketing gimmick
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 4 years, 10 months ago
    Organic foods primary purpose is to help the upper middle class differentiate themselves from poor and "less educated" people. Keep in mind that food choices are as close if not closer to a person than their sex choices or religion. Religion and Sex play a fairly small part in a persons life when compared to their eating choices. While yes, Doritos might be killing people. The only role GMO has played there is by making corn abundant and cheap, which has made Doritos abundant and cheap.. Which is why we now have a friggen Doritos isle in the grocery store..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years, 10 months ago
    I was once in full favor of GMO crops. Then, as is the case with many topics in my life, I decided to study it on my own. This habit...independent study...really has paid dividends in my life. This is another example. I have a really diverse background that exposed me to all kids of things. A stint in agricultural aviation was very informative in terms of learning about our food.

    I am not opposed to GMO crops. But, I am opposed to eating what is sprayed on GMO crops. And, a lot of people mischaracterize GMO as basic, old-school, hybridization. That's not what it is.

    A few years back we had a GMO labeling proposition here in California. Even in leftist, granola-eating California it was defeated. I asked a (fellow conservative) buddy why he voted against it. His answer, "Because the trial lawyers will make a lot of money filing suits around it." My answer - "Well, they started labeling trans fats a few years back and it didn't happen then." (crickets chirping). He got his science education from the same place most people do, talk radio. GMO is a highly-politicized topic. Therefore, the science behind it will be mostly ignored as the media whips the public into its standard partisan, anti-science froth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 4 years, 10 months ago
    The same can be said for people who don't eat pork. Can we now say that hot dog labelers should or should not be allowed to label whether a product contains chicken, or turkey, or beef, or pork? I do not care nor do I want to argue whether pork is a healthful meat or isn't. Whether it is rational to eat bacon or irrational. It is crispy and delicious. The point is that people have different preferences and that those preferences are subject to the market mechanism, as is any other non-compulsive economic interaction. This has already been explained. And no I am not a Rothbardian Austrian.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 4 years, 10 months ago
    The biggest advantage you will find with organic is it probably grew more locally, and so has been on the shelf for less time. That alone makes it better for you.
    But if you can buy direct from a grower anyway (from a farm, or farmers market) then ignore whether it is organic or not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Katlevy 4 years, 10 months ago
    Of course, most importantly is that we all have the freedom to choose what we consume w/o governmental invention AND be given truth regarding ingredients!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo