HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Ghost Dog » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

Ghost Dog

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Canary Islands Archipelago
Home country: Spain
Member since: Wed Apr 19, 2006, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 16,717

About Me

A Brit many years in Spain, Catalunya, Baleares, Canarias. Cooperative member. Geography. Ecology. Cartography. Software. Sound Recording. Music Production. Languages & Literature. History.

Journal Archives

Good, then, I agree.

Food product labeling does not fall within the scope of what the FDA regulates. Agreed.

It is a political issue requiring a political executive decision and not within the set of subjects amenable to scientific analysis (beyond political, economic and associated social sciences, that is). If the FDA has indeed been formally empowered to decide, unscientifically, on the issue of labeling, then that power has been delegated, I would suggest improperly, by the political executive and should be recovered by the same.

"... a minuscule number of narcissistic hedonists, most of whom fit the profile of psychopathy..."

Perfect description, thanks!

Yes, because people want to make the informed choice, a rational motivation

and reasonable in a democracy. This is DU and that is what labeling would enable.

My personal rational reasons, as, amongst other things, an environmental sciences graduate from the 1970s, include the desire to be able to make choices which might help to avoid or mitigate possible ecosystemic risks from predictable and unpredictable effects on the modified and associated species arising from the use of genetic engineering, and a desire to resist the control and contamination of food chains, human beings, their societies and the natural environment by monopolistic and corrupt crony-corporations.

Your rational reasons against labeling?

Your statements do not logically 'add up'.

People want labeling along with other information so that they can make informed choices.

You cannot prove no people have died from eating food including GMO ingredients. It is logically impossible to prove a negative. So there is no rational argument in your favor on that count, sorry.

Genetic engineering can be simply described a a process of 'cutting and splicing' genetic material to and from anywhere in the gene pool of life on this planet, under total human (corporate) control. Breeding can be described as a process whereby natural selection is influenced by human intervention in this natural process, selecting for desired traits as they emerge. There is a great difference. Some extreme forms of mutation breeding (the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred), especially if in breeding animals, could well be considered inappropriate.

If corporate interests are corrupting and contaminating truly organic products in the USA then, you are right, labeling products 'Organic' would be of little use to the discerning mind. Labeling products as 'GMO', by contrast, would be both unambiguous and useful to people who want to know.

Not only.

Natural selection in neighboring species populations is affected by the presence of the GMOs (yes, and any domesticated and non-domesticated species) themselves. In the case of GMOs engineered to be particularly pest-resistant, the pests evolve, so as a consequence new pesticides tend to get developed and/or pesticide use tends to increase in the context of the industrialized, energy-inefficient, corporate-controlled agriculture, horticulture and animal-'husbandry' in which such technology is being employed in a way always designed to benefit corporate controllers, owners and shareholders long before any thought might be given to the consequences, proven or yet to be proven, for the human population at large, its social wellbeing and its natural environment.

Re: A Spanish ship, carrying 'treasure' from Spain’s then colonies in South America,

sunk by British (formally declared or not so much) naval forces (and salvaged by whoever).

¿How can there be any question about who owns it, today?

Yes. There will be artificially-controlled protected environments for the Chosen Few

and their servants with noble architecture, hanging gardens and perfumed air while the rest of us participate in the ecologically inevitable process of population self-regulation by dying in billions in the coming decade through entirely natural causes such as famine, disease, police-state activity and war.

See: no big deal, really.

Though climate change is a crisis, the population threat is even worse

... Demand for food is set to double by 2050 as a result of increasing population and consumption per capita – especially as more people move to an increasingly meat-based diet. So-called “rational optimists” are quick to claim that this demand will be easily met without significant further appropriation of land for agricultural use thanks to the ongoing “miracle” of the green revolution.

This ignores the fact that soil degradation and erosion are increasing rapidly in many parts of the world; that many of the world’s crops are increasingly at risk from novel (primarily) fungal pathogens; and that climate and crop models showing the number of extreme weather events associated with predicted future climate change are projected to have potentially devastating effects on crops in significant parts of the world.

Indeed, there are ample reasons to be concerned that we may be heading towards unprecedented food crises over the coming decades, with consequent extremely deleterious risks to the health of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people. Furthermore, in many parts of the world where population is increasing rapidly, there is a rise in the number of people living in close quarters with pigs and poultry (not to mention the increasing consumption of “bush meat”). And as a consequence we are greatly increasing the risk of a novel pathogen crossing the species barrier and creating a truly terrifying global pandemic.

Remarkably, collectively, we seem to want to deny all of this: that we are the drivers of the main problems facing us this century; and that, as we continue to grow, these problems are set to get worse. Climate change, extreme weather events, pollution, ecosystem degradation – the fundamental alteration of every component of the complex system we rely upon for our survival – are due to the activities of the rising human population...

/... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/04/climate-change-population-crisis-paris-summit

Turkey-Syria CIA ratlines (Pepe Escobar)

... So why did Washington take virtually forever to not really acknowledge ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is selling stolen Syrian oil that will eventually find is way to Turkey? Because the priority all along was to allow the CIA – in the shadows – to run a “rat line” weaponizing a gaggle of invisible “moderate rebels”.

As much as Daesh – at least up to now – the Barzani mob in Iraqi Kurdistan was never under Washington’s watch. The oil operation the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) runs to Turkey is virtually illegal; stolen state-owned oil as far as Baghdad is concerned.

Daesh stolen oil can’t flow through Damascus-controlled territory. Can’t flow though Shi’ite-dominated Iraq. Can’t go east to Iran. It’s Turkey or nothing. Turkey is the easternmost arm of NATO. The US and NATO “support” Turkey. So a case can be made that the US and NATO ultimately support Daesh.

What’s certain is that illegal Daesh oil and illegal KRG oil fit the same pattern; energy interests by the usual suspects playing a very long game...

... The key reason why Washington always solemnly ignored Ankara’s array of shady deals in Syria, through its fifth column Turkmen jihadis, is because a key CIA “rat line” runs exactly through the region known as Turkmen Mountain...

/... http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/03/how-russia-is-smashing-the-turkish-game-in-syria/

Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy

... Despite its relatively small population of just 3.4 million, Uruguay has earned a remarkable amount of global kudos in recent years. It enacted groundbreaking marijuana legalisation, pioneered stringent tobacco control, and introduced some of the most liberal policies in Latin America on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Now, it is being recognised for progress on decarbonising its economy. It has been praised by the World Bank and the Economic commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the WWF last year named Uruguay among its “Green Energy Leaders”, proclaiming: “The country is defining global trends in renewable energy investment.”...

... “What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business,” Méndez says. “The construction and maintenance costs are low, so as long as you give investors a secure environment, it is a very attractive.”...

... Along with reliable wind – at an average of about 8mph – the main attraction for foreign investors like Enercon is a fixed price for 20 years that is guaranteed by the state utility. Because maintenance costs are low (just 10 staff) and stable, this guarantees a profit.

As a result, foreign firms are lining up to secure windfarm contracts. The competition is pushing down bids, cutting electricity generating costs by more than 30% over the past three years. Christian Schaefer, supervising technician at Enercon said his company was hoping to expand and another German company Nordex is already building an even bigger plant further north along route five. Trucks carrying turbines, towers and blades are now a common sight on the country’s roads...

/... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2