2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's Be Clear. Hillary Does Support Monsanto & GMO's
Nice article by Manny letting us know that Hillary is not on Monsanto's Board of Directors:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/no-hillary-clinton-does-not-work-for-monsanto/
But, don't let this suggest she is not in support of Monsanto and GMO's. She very much is.
People like to say "GMO's are healthy for us - there is no evidence they are not" However, the World Health Organization in March (2015) declared Roundup a probable human carcinogen.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has this to say:
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo8.htm
What they really want to avoid discussing is their effect on the planet.
Here's a good article that Art_from_Ark found:
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/08/27/opinion/contributors/when-it-comes-to-gmos-which-side-is-hillary-clinton-on/
Clip:
There are three glaring problems with Clintons promotion of GE drought-resistant crops. First, drought-resistant seeds and crops are still in the experimental stage and make up a miniscule portion of GMO crops on the market. More than 95 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used in animal feed and in processed food products, such as high-fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsantos Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds.
Second, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts largely have failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsantos DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved by the USDA so far, produces only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.
Third, according to experts at global organizations, such as the Food & Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture not genetic engineering is not only the most practical way to feed the world but is absolutely essential if we want to slow and eventually reverse global warming.
---
It's time we take a stand and work towards a better solution that is sustainable.
Creating Tastier and Healthier Fruits and Veggies with a Modern Alternative to GMOs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/creating-tastier-and-healthier-fruits-and-veggies-with-a-modern-alternative-to-gmos/
Say what you want but, the whole world seems to be coming to the same conclusion.
GM acceptance in decline as global crop cultivation falls
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science/GM-acceptance-in-decline-as-global-crop-cultivation-falls
The biggest reason why so many argue for GMO's... profit.
Planet Earth will take care of itself. We spray poisons on food so it will bring in more profitable harvests. Problem - Resolution. Earth rebounds.
Let's think about the future and care about what we are leaving our children.
Hillary, and our current corporate overlords, have other priorities.
We, as a people, need to take this opportunity to change the status quo and begin working towards a better world. 2016 is the opportunity to begin taking a different path.
For the sake of our children and the world, I hope we do.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)So do most scientists.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)DianeK
(975 posts)We have a GMO labeling law ...where, you ask? Vermont..you know..that little insignificant state where Bernie Sanders comes from
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Other than on the seed bags, of course. And those are labeled.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/
reformist2
(9,841 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nor is the fact that it's done somewhere else. Lots of countries ban gay marriage, and I don't think you want to go back there, do you?
Muslims want Halal food, but they don't demand that non Halal food be labeled as such. And, yes, that's a valid comparison. It's about a preference that has nothing to do with nutrition, food safety, or food quality.
The reality is that the consumer gets zero actual information from a label indicating the type of seed development technology used to create the seed that led to the plant.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
progressoid
(49,990 posts)That would give you as much information and a GMO label. i.e None.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)My main concern is the increased use of pesticides.
Most scientists agree.
That's why I posted articles from the U.N and WHO. That's why most of Europe is banning GMO's.
We're poisoning our planet.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)or at least he said he did. But that was back when he didn't approve of mandatory insurance. Before he "changed his mind". ROFL what a joke.
These people must laugh pretty hard at the masses. Because they keep believing the absolute filth that pours out of their mouths.
The entire US food supply is infested with this genetically modified crap
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)BTW, GMOs appear to be leading to less pesticide use, and to the use of safer herbicides.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
As an example, look at what Chipotle's anti-GMO stance means (it's not good for the environment):
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/05/what-does-chipotles-switch-to-non-gmo-ingredients-mean-for-pesticide-use/
The European nations who are not allowing their farmers to grow GMOs are not making their decisions based in science. And you might want to look into what the UN and the WHO say about GMOs.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)In general I'd like more labeling for everything: amount and type of pesticides used, distance transported, amount of petroleum fertilizer used, etc. You could roll up the distance and fertilizer into an overall carbon footprint, I guess.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... then you might have a justification for labeling GMOs. Well, there's still no science-based reason to label the seed development technology, but at least it would be more consistent. And, yes, labeling the type and amount of pesticide/herbicide used would be great. I don't think you'll find the companies that financially support the anti-GMO movement to be supportive of that either, however.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, a majority of Americans polled said food should be labeled for "containing DNA" and that they wouldn't buy it if it did.
Still, we can't let the stupid 60% ruin things for the rest of us...
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 6, 2015, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Clip about the frog:
There is, however, one unusual thing about Darnell.
He's female.
Genetically, Darnell is male. But after being raised in water contaminated with the herbicide atrazine at a level of 2.5 parts per billionslightly less than what's allowed in our drinking waterhe developed a female body, inside and out.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Please be aware of the basic science involved.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)For example, Roundup resistant corn.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)This is like opposing cars because some drunks kill people in them.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)These specific GMOs are made to resist a specific herbicide.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)actually good.
Thanks in advance.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)please tell me how farmers grow cheese. I always thought it was a processed food.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Delicious cheese existed long before GMOs came on the scene.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Wow! Just wow!
progressoid
(49,990 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)Perhaps it would be more fair to say that roundup ready crops are to pesticide like cars with built in kegs are to drunk driving.
Building kegs into the design of cars would be stupid and lead to more drunken accidents. Likewise it was stupid to build pesticide resistance into crops and has lead to indiscriminate use of pesticides.
ToxMarz
(2,166 posts)We should still build cars with gas tanks, just not put the gas tank in that position
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Criticizing ALL GMOs is not supportable.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)And that entirely category of GMO technology should just go away.
Trav
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)Meaning farmers are using less pesticides and getting better yields. And despite being a boogieman to stoke GMO fears, Roundup is used on non-GMO crops, too.
More food. Less herbicide use. Thats an advantage for both farmers and families struggling to put food on the table.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And we need bees to pollinate our crops. Besides we need honey so that we can make mead.
Less toxic nothing, as long as it is killing beneficial insects, I am against it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Actually, it's not.
But it does make bee's less sensitive to finding food sources, and affects their memory and ability to return to the hive.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 10:35 PM - Edit history (1)
That's not fair!
Besides, folks might find out that organic farmers are working to harm the bees themselves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12314061
progressoid
(49,990 posts)Sometimes in excess of GMO crops
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)progressoid
(49,990 posts)On non-GMO soybeans last year he applied 1.5 pints of Dual, 5 ounces of Sencor, 2 quarts of glyphosate and 1 pint of Super HC per acre.
His fertilizer dealer recommended he use DuPonts Envive in replacement of Sencor for control on broadleaves this year, so he held the rate down to the lowest recommendation to avoid getting into a carryover issue with his cover crops.
Miller recommends no-tillers considering non-GMO crops seek out experts who can recommend herbicides used before glyphosate came along.
- See more at: http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/493-fighting-weeds-boosting-profits-with-non-gmos#sthash.dAR5IC33.dpuf
progressoid
(49,990 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Roundup is killing beneficial insects. There are some insects that are needed for a healthy soil. We cannot just keep fertilizing the hell out of it, and planting the same crop year after year after year. There comes a point of diminishing returns with monoculture farming.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)And I agree about mono culture farming. However that is a different issue from the safety of GMOs.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)Many plants produce toxins to ward off pests. Modification strategies seek to elevate the concentration of those toxins. GMO Bt corn is actually considered a pesticide, for example. The presumption is that these toxins are broken down by the digestive system ... a prediction which has not been universally supported by studies and experiment.
I don't think we can regard the long term safety of most GMO foods as settled science by any means.
Trav
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Each GMO should be subject to independent approval.... just like any other thing.
Making blanket statements about GMOs is just not scientifically supportable.
I DO support the regulation of GMOs. I don't support hysterical blanket reactions.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Me too.
But Monsanto is a dreadful company.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)but don't let that get in the way of your demagoguery.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Before you say it - yes with organic too.
However, we need to stop poisoning our planet.
I'm anti-pesticide and GMO's increase pesticide use.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Some do, yes. We need to deal with that issue, I agree.
But that's an aspect of GMOs, not the totality.
This seems a baby/bathwater situation to me.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I think everyone can agree that Monsanto is fucking horrible.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)Based on what I've read and conversations with entomologists in my area, I'm convinced that the rise in Round Up ready ag crops is the leading cause (but probably not the only cause) in the decline of native pollinators. I know a lot of people, even on the left, don't really care about this or about biodiversity in general but it is important to me and to many others.
Another concern is terminator seeds that can't be saved from year to year. This puts poor farmers in perpetual debt to the big ag companies.
Products should be labelled. Regardless of the reason one has concerns about GMOs, they should have the right to "vote with their wallet" and not support GMOs.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Seed saving hasn't really been a part of farming for decades and more. It's not about GMOs.
Labeling a seed development technology tells you nothing about the food.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2014/08/16/a-principled-case-against-mandatory-gmo-labels/
Your post seems to contain many of the usual anti-GMO claims, but those claims aren't supported by the consensus of science.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)It was talked about in many media outlets but I will grant you it's been awhile since I have seen anything written about it so perhaps they have been pulled. Here is one article just from a quick search:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
In the U.S., seed saving is not a big thing, at least among large-scale farmers, but it is still practiced here to some extent and it is still embraced in other parts of the world.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Seed saving doesn't happen, as a general rule, around the world, as it is simply inefficient.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249608/-The-Need-to-Save-Seeds-is-a-Bad-Sign#
The article you posted has nothing to do with "Terminator" seeds, but there has never been any such thing on the market. See myth 1 here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted
The topic of the article you did link has also been debunked:
http://issues.org/30-2/keith/
and...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india
and...
http://io9.com/the-gmo-mass-suicides-are-a-myth-1565342067
and...
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I realize it is not the most efficient way to acquire seed as do most people who save seed. They still do it.
The India suicide story is very interesting. It was very prominent in the news at the time but I never saw anything about the story being debunked. I suppose like most things "if it bleeds it leads" and the follow-up didn't make the cut.
In any case, you are clearly very invested in this issue. It's not at the top of the list of things I care about. For me, as long as roundup-ready crops are on the market, I'm going to do my best to avoid GMO products. I think consumers should have the right to "vote with their wallets" as it is one of the only ways to make themselves heard to these big corporations. That's all I have to say about it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)However, you aren't going to be any safer or healthier by avoiding GMO food. Glyphosate is safer than the products it replaced, and those are the products used on non-GMO plants, typically. Also, organic farmers use plenty of pesticides and herbicides, some of the more toxic than other products, and some of them used in amounts that are far greater than other products. Further, organic farming uses more land and resources to produce less food. That's not good for the planet. But, again, you can do what you want.
Please stop spreading misinformation, in the meantime, however.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)And accusing me of being a liar all in the same post. I never understood why anyone would want to use the Ignore function but it makes sense to me now. Have a nice life.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm not sure how asking you to refrain from posting such items becomes a personal attack. It really is meant to ask you to think before you post such items. Thank you.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)Ian Plewis, of the University of Manchester, in Britian, has looked at suicide rates in the cotton-growing areas of India, which are usually regarded as among the worst-hit. He finds that the suicide rate among male farmers in the nine main cotton-growing states was just under 30 per 100,000 in 2011. That is about the same as suicide rates among farmers in France and Scotland, so Indian farmers do not seem unusual. The rates are slightly lower than among men in those states who do not work on farms, so Indian cotton farmers are slightly less likely to commit suicide than their non-farming neighbours. Nor is there any sign that suicides rates changed significantly after 2002, when GM cotton began to be introduced. Overall, Indian suicide rates are not especially high. Officially, they are just over 10 per 100,000, slightly more than Germany and less than half Chinas, though of course, the official figures might be underestimates.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/03/gm-crops-indian-farmers-and-suicide
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)It's how I keep my daughter fed.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I'm guessing you actually use food, not profit.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Profits buy goods and services - including food.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Until you run out of food.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)to grow food, when the air is too polluted to breathe, when the water is too polluted to drink, I hope you enjoy eating, drinking and breathing your money!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)that every Dem candidate believes in science, not just your "anointed one".
artislife
(9,497 posts)to open this link and look what Monsanto has done in Argentina and then be so flippant about why farm workers now wear hazard gear and not bibbed overalls like before.
http://overgrowthesystem.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned-photo-essay/
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)These are wicked system issues that require deep policy solutions. It's past time to get deadly serious about global solutions...or wait for the cascade of collapsing systems. The problem will resolve without us, eventually.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)we have enough make believe science from the right. We don't need it on the left.
Deadshot
(384 posts)It sounds like your problem is with pesticides.
BTW, I'm a Bernie supporter and I'm also a GMO supporter. I follow the science, not woo websites.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Monsanto makes RoundUp.
The issues are clearly linked.
They Profit, We Die: Toxic Agriculture and the Poisoning of Soils, Human Health and the Environment
http://www.globalresearch.ca/they-profit-we-die-toxic-agriculture-and-the-poisoning-of-soils-human-health-and-the-environment/5483932
Deadshot
(384 posts)Thanks for playing.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.
Conclusion
The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Lean
(39 posts)64 countries now label GE foods. 38 countries ban GE crops. A green wave is sweeping Europe.
The Truth About GMOs:
1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinsons and Alzheimers
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
GMO FACT: The majority of GMO crops grown today are genetically engineered to withstand the repeated spraying of Roundup glyphosate-based weedkiller, a Class 2A Probable Human Carcinogen according to the World Health Organization.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)With NO citations. That's what we call pseudo science.
Lean
(39 posts)YOU have no proof that Monsanto poison is safe. Because there is NO PROOF. And NO LONG-TERM STUDIES. THIS IS FACT. The onus in on Monsanto, not the American public. That's what I call BS. Monsanto is buying off American university scientists, while a the rest of the world is banning GE crops, America is Monsanto's petri dish. 38 countries ban GE crops for good reason. And 64 countries label it. Why do you think that is???
Monsantos Tobacco Files: University Scientists Caught Conspiring With Biotech Industry to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Then accuse the other of being a shill. Do you have any links to research papers or peer-reviewed studies? Eco Watch isn't what I'd call an unbiased science publication.
Deadshot
(384 posts)Deadshot
(384 posts)Thanks for playing.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I am only against GMOs that are patented and harm the farming industry. I am in otherwise 100% support for GMOs. I'm anti-patent, not anti-GMO. I think the government should fully take over GMO research.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It's just science.
It's what and how it's used.
From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)He supports them as well
I think they should be labeled
I think Monsanto should lose their protections that are over reaching; like if their seeds blow into someone else's field the crop is still theirs
Monsanto does not get to claim crops in fields because seeds were blown there. That is a myth.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)I support GMOs, too.
Try feeding the world on organics only - ain't happening.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Here's some science to scare you - we should be eating bugs.
Edible insects
Future prospects for food and feed security
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm
pinebox
(5,761 posts)when in a society like America, where we throw away so much food. It's rather sad really.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)The science behind monocrops is bad for the environment. We should be planting with much fewer insecticides and such if we use the proven methods of crop rotation, and companion planting, for example.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Organic is not better for the environment, nor is it "sustainable."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/11/19/why-organic-isnt-sustainable/
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/six_reasons_organic_not_most_environmentally_friendly_way_farm-110209
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/organic-farming-environment-lord-krebs
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/10/is-organic-food-worth-the-expense/the-ecological-case-against-organic-farming
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she likes everything BIG and POWERFUL, so if its big its good. Big Pharma, big ag, big trade, and we know she's gonna change her mind on that again, big banks, big corporate media, HUGE military MIC, big insurance companies, and most of all big campaign $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
as scotty would say, its all about power.
randr
(12,412 posts)Shouldn't be too hard to find.
DFW
(54,376 posts)Probably the same source that has Bernie Sanders on the board of the Remington Arms Company.
On Breitbart or Fox Noise maybe.
Not true, though:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hey-liberals-stop-falsely-claiming-that-hillary-clinton-was-on-the-monsanto-board-of-directors/22194/
randr
(12,412 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)She sat on Walmart's board: http://www.progressivepress.net/hillary-clinton-was-a-wal-mart-director-for-6-years/
But she was an attorney for Monsanto, just as Clarence Thomas was:
https://www.metabunk.org/partially-debunked-list-of-monsanto-employees-in-government.t3664/
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)File it under #dontbelieveeverythingontheinternet
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But to make such a simpleton comment as "I'm against GMO's" is akin to saying I'm anti vaccine, global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.
Monsanto is like the gun industry to some politicians. They think they should get special privileges.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It is just science.
It's what and how it's used.
From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.
Ignoring the poisoning of our planet is like saying global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.
You're ok with this?
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Or, would you rather not think about it?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm glad your not. It's an ignorant position that a very small group of conspiracy theorist and anti science people hold. So your issue with Clinton is one of industry. Fair for debate.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I agrree with them on this issue, just like I agree with them about the climate, the age of the earth, and everything else in their domain.
It's nice to see Hillary doing the same. I still prefer Sanders.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And so do most people who understand science. GMO is not a left/right issue.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)It has evolved just like everything else - gay rights, big business and banks, war, torture,...
Hillary is our progressive champion
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)What next, vaccine deniers?
There are recent interlopers in the Democratic Party who have WAY too many things in common with the Republocans.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)GMO's increase of pesticide use? It's human and environmental dangers?
Weighing the GMO arguments:
http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Show me scientists that support increased pesticide use - real scientists who are not sponsored.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)or the world starves.....not Americans much, but the rest of the world can not be fed sustainably with organics.
Trust in science, not fear.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Here's some science to scare you - we should be eating bugs.
Edible insects
Future prospects for food and feed security
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e00.htm
Or this science:
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Science is not inherently good or evil. It is not biased.
My fear that we're poisoning the earth is real though. You may disagree.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Genetically Modified Foods are not inherently bad. It is just science.
It's what and how it's used.
From increased pesticide use to long term patents, GMO's have a lot of issues that could be reversed for a better world.
Ignoring the poisoning of our planet is like saying global warming is a farce, and the earth is flat.
You're ok with this?
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Ask Neil about this.
Should stick to what he knows best. Astrophysics.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I think a lot of people are forgetting this though.
Lobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton---Registered lobbyists brought in more than $2 million in fundraising for the Clinton campaign, recent filings show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton
The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaignswho were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.
Bundlers, who are often wealthy or well-connected individuals, do more than donate to campaigns. They put their social networks to work for favorite candidates, persuading (often equally wealthy and well-connected) family members, friends, colleagues, and other contacts to donate as well, effectively bringing in far more money than they could under the current legal donation limits. Individuals can contribute $2,700 to candidate committees (as opposed to super PACS) for the primary election and the same amount for the general election, for a total of $5,400 in a campaign cycle. Campaigns don't have to disclose their bundlersunless those bundlers are also lobbyists.
Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.
Exxon didn't immediately request for comment. The NCTA and Microsoft declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Monsanto said Crawford's law firm has multiple clients. "I don't think it's fair to isolate his experience to working with us," she said. Monsanto, however, is Crawford's only lobbying client, according to filings, a relationship that dates to at least 2009.
Crawford, who has supported the Clintons since 1992, said he has not and does not intend to lobby Clinton on behalf of Monsanto. "I support Hillary now because I have no doubt she would be the best President of the United States our country could have," he wrote in an email.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)They aren't doing it for charity, we know that.
We need to get special interests out of politics
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its the only way we're going to get positive change & our reps working for the interests of the people of this country again. Its also the only way we're going to be able to save sustainable life. We're in the 6th mass extinction. You would think that would be the top story everyday in the media & a topic in every debate.
How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Salute! From the GOP!
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)I supported her over Barrack. But now I cannot. It is a sad missed opportunity for a woman to do the right things for this planet that is suffering but these Companies are being banned all over the place outside the USA and they keep dumping it here. She supports that. I have no forgiveness nor love for her on this. We/all life, are all dying and she doesn't care.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Believe Big Corporate Science on GMOs or you are climate-change denying wingnut."
No there is a major difference.
The climate change debate is over whether we should stop bad behavior, and adopt alternative energy sources that are cleaner than the poisons we have been spewing since the Industrial Revolution. Regardless of the merits of climate change science is much better for the environment overall. The environment and pollution was an issue long before climate change.
The GMO debate is whether we should engage in something new with unknown effects on the food system and the overall ecology in the long term. Are we setting in motion we will regard down the line, introducing a new form of bio-engineered pollution?
Personally, I'm kind of a science dummy with an open mind to all possibilities. Maybe GMO's are safe. Maybe not. Maybe a mix.,....We don't really know what the hell we're doing to the ecology or our bodies.
But I sure as hell prefer that we continue to conduct INDEPENDENT research. And deal with the unanswered questions fully, rather than just assume that the science, which is largely at the mercy of Monsanto and the otehr Ag Giants, is sound just because they say so.
And by the way Monsanto is trying to monopolize several markets and totally dominate the food system. That's bad. No matter how benign or harmful GMOs turn out to be.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)By and large, Europe embraces it, and we don't.
...The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution....
From "The precautionary principle in environmental science" available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/
Worth repeating what it is:
taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty;
shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity;
exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and
increasing public participation in decision making.
For more information see this WHO white paper:
"The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children"
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Also, the claim about "massive doses of herbicide" is pure hyperbole.
PS:
Salt, Vinegar, and Glyphosate
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/
olddots
(10,237 posts)If a mega corporation is involved with many destructive products it is hard for me to believe that anything they touch is safe .Many of us can be anti Monsanto but very pro science .Hillary's association with big corporations can be construed as questionable for someone in a position of the power of law .