Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: BjornBee on February 10, 2012, 02:03:48 pm
-
I did not want this link to get lost on a multi-page thread that is already being discussed about Monsanto. So I will post this here so as many can see this as possible.
And keep in mind the first part as it discusses GMO mosquitos and what this could mean with Monsanto buying up bee research companies. GMO bees? The bee discussion is about half way through. But you should listen to all of it.
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=392D72A0CD569C34A603BB4883029B51 (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=392D72A0CD569C34A603BB4883029B51)
;)
-
... I did not want this link to get lost on a multi-page thread... So I will post this here so as many can see this as possible...
Thank you, I sat through it twice.
I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry so I cried. I hadn’t cried so hard since I first read Dr. Joseph Gobbles’ (Hitler’s Propaganda Chief) speeches in the original German.
In the first segment is a graphic that asks, “How do we STOP the genetic engineering of our food supply? I didn’t think then that Jeffery Smith was going to present much of an un biased representation of non organic agriculture. After goggling Mr. Smith I found this bio on his own web sight:
“The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey M. Smith, is the author of the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the health dangers genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk, and the environment in peril.
His first book Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating masterfully combines the art of storytelling and investigative reporting…”
What the heck does story telling have to do with investigative reporting? Besides isn’t “story telling” an euphuism for lying?
Continuing with Mr. Smith’s bio:
“His second book, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, is the authoritative work on GMO health dangers. It includes 65 health dangers, linking GMOs in our food to toxic and allergic reactions, infertility, and damage to virtually every internal organ studied in lab animals…” Name one.
For the last 170 years American has been plagued by health food charlatans, like Mr. Smith, or Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. They have hawked everything from sexual abstaincance, to female circumcision to yogurt enemas and now anti-GMO rhetoric to generate book sales. BTW, early health food crusaders condemned honey because honey caused one to think about their “honey.”
Kellogg stole the recipe for Granula (yes I spelled it right) from Dr. J. Calab Jackson who operated a competing health spa in New York State called Our Home on the Hillside. Soon Kellogg was selling Granula at his spa at the ‘San’ in Battle Creek, Michigan. When Jackson was done suing, Kellogg changed the name of his trail mix to Granola and it has remained Granola ever since.
Now back to Mr. Smith, the only thing of interest I gleaned from his video is Smith’s claim that corporations are feeding cat food to mosquitoes, (minute 3.30 to 4.00) and his claim that a corn variety that doesn’t require as much water as other corn verities is not a drought resistant corn verity. And to reinforce his scientific bonfires Smith states that mosquitoes that don’t bite (male mosquitoes) bite humans. He’s got to be kidding, right? The last line in Smith’s own web sight is his only expertise in agriculture. The last line in his bio reads, “Mr. Smith lives with his wife in Iowa, surrounded by genetically modified soybeans and corn.” Come on!
http://dansville.lib.ny.us/historyo.html#castle (http://dansville.lib.ny.us/historyo.html#castle)
http://www.circumstitions.com/Kellogg.html (http://www.circumstitions.com/Kellogg.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg)
To give the devil his due Dr. Kellogg did live to the ripe old age of 91 as did his brother Keith. So I don’t know how much of JHK's long life is the result of Dr. Kellogg’s never engaging in sex, eating meat or taking 3 soy yogurt enemas a day, and how much of his long life was the result of his genes. But I do know that the Wisconsin wiener impresario Oscar F. Myers lived to be almost 96 and he fathered 4 children. Go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_F._Mayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_F._Mayer)
-
Now that kingbee report took some work to come up with, and was quite interesting. Thanks.
-
I think it is typical to attack a subject, by attacking side issues and bringing in side points of issue. Golly gee, let's even dismiss what he says because he wrote a book. Wow...what a concept!
I personally think the anti-GMO movement is fast growing. I think those who fully support (by dismissing those that oppose) Monsanto and others, will in the end be found to be foolish in their blind trust of international multi-billion dollar corporations who want to control the food industry, by claiming they want to "help" those that they target. We have seen that MO before. But yes, lets trust the greed and intentions of large corporations such as Monsanto, while attacking some guy for writing a book.
I am convinced that GMO and GMO neonicotinoid pesticide laced seed (they go hand in hand) are detrimental to bees, and the environment. And I do not think that I should blindly trust GMO for the fact that the companies such as Monsanto said I should. With the track record of the EPA recently in regards to their approval process of pesticides, who knows what things are approved out there. Fortunately, we have a great track record in this country of buying into many "approved" items. Everything from women's health aids, to bee treatments. And many items have come back over the years to be found harmful.
But the nice thing of a forum is the keeping of discussions like this with archives. While many hate pulling out past conversations, I like the fact that you can look back many years later and reading what foolish trust some had in years past.
While I do not buy all my food from organic stores (I have issues with them also), and could be hardly considered an advocate for some of the more radicals out there with stances of bee conferences being marketed as being HFCS free, and other similar stances, I do think having a conversation of where the food industry is headed, and what the intentions of such companies as Monsanto, are healthy. I just question the personal bias that some have in so strongly attacking anyone and everything, that seemingly goes against GMO crops. Of course many support GMO crops and they have already fully bought into anything that Monsanto is doing. I don't think the full story or environmental impact has been realized. And I think with the technology we have today, it will only get worse while Monsanto is unstoppable.
Go ahead and try to convince me they are well intentioned. Go ahead and tell me why you trust GMO and Monsanto the way you do. But please don't bring up Kellogg and side issues that hardly justify, support, or explain, what needs to be discussed. Your point is being lost I suppose by the amount of smoke being blown.
-
Even without the possible effects of GMO products, just the rights that the farmers loose to the companies, such as not being able to keep some of their own seed to use the next year etc. takes away many of their rights. They do not even control a product grown on their own land.
-
We as humans are too smart for our own good. In my eyes we are slowly ruining the land and our food supply some things just shouldnt be touched and the food supply is one of them. Leave it as nature intended having gmos sounds great but the long term effects seem awful scary in my eyes. Chris
-
"Now that kingbee report took some work to come up with, and was quite interesting. Thanks."
Kingbee claims eating of organic produce caused the bacteria outbreaks in vegetables in the recent past, and that monsanto is our friend with our best interests in mind. I won't waste any of my time reading any propaganda of his.
"Have any of you kept up with any of the cases of food born illnesses contacted from fresh produce? No? Well most of these outbreaks result from eating raw organic fruits, greens, and veggies."
-
Could someone please start from the beginning and tell us who Monsanto is and what country/countries it is owned by, who runs it, what does it do, whose legislation it is under and where it is operating.
Thankyou,
Lone
-
Monsanto is the company that brought us Agent Orange, bovine growth hormone, genetically engineered crops, saccharin, DDT, PCBs, etc.
Here's a blurb from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto)
They are a multinational country based in St. Louis, Missouri.
A few environmental notes about Monsanto:
"According to an anonymous 2001 document[28] obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States. Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.
Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup. A report released in June 2011 linked glyphosate to birth defects in frog and chicken embryos at dilutions much lower than those used in agricultural and garden spraying."
Their response to requests to verify the safety of GMO food (per Wikipedia): "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."
-
Here's an e-mail link I just got in my inbox. It's by Mother Earth News, so clearly biased. However, their list of what Monsanto has given us lines up exactly with what my husband and I have seen in our lives as farmers.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/healthy-people-healthy-planet/monsantos-false-advertising.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=02.13.12+HE&utm_campaign=2012+HE&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email (http://www.motherearthnews.com/healthy-people-healthy-planet/monsantos-false-advertising.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=02.13.12+HE&utm_campaign=2012+HE&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email)
•increasingly expensive seed
•a huge reduction in biodiversity, as Monsanto snaps up smaller seed companies and gains more ownership of seed strains
•lawsuits against farmers whose own crops have been contaminated by Monsanto’s patented seed
•overwhelming rises in the applications of its herbicides, including Roundup — which has been linked to a host of health and environmental problems
•the creation of “super weeds” and “super pests” that no herbicide or pesticide will control
-
Has anyone read "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver? It is a really great book that looks at the history and possible future of agriculture, farming and corporate agriculture in the U.S. I recommend it highly. The discussions of the necessity of diversity in food, not just for "hip" or "cool" factor of heirlooms, etc. is very interesting and, frankly quite frightening. It addresses many of the subjects and ideas presented in this post.
(disclamer: I have not had the time to view the video you posted. )
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, BjornBee, if you have read it.
love,
ziffa
-
Yes, read it. It was an interesting read.
-
... Kingbee claims eating of organic produce caused the bacteria outbreaks in vegetables in the recent past, and that monsanto is our friend...
After reading, re-reading, and reading my post one more time once again, I can not find even one instance where I mentioned M-o-n-s-a-n-t-o-'-s name. It is likely that the cultural subconscious conditioning we under go today prompted you into thinking that I did. It was the Russian scientist Ivan Petrovich Pavlova who was the first to study the effects of preconditioning when his dog heard Pavloav's dinner bell ring.
What I am trying to do is to prevent us from taking a giant leap of faith off a cliff or into the abyss by following greasy self serving false prophets who often have a political agenda (think about that Global Warming thingy) and who (IMHO) at best are only out to sell cheesy books on the lecture circuit or else trick lonely little old ladies with too many cats, into remembering him in their wills.
I can prove my statements about raw organic food killing humans. I can prove ALL of my statements about health food hustlers from the health food gold rush days of the past. Can you prove any of the charges brought by anyone against M-o-n-s-a-n-t-o- or for that matter any of the accusations about GMOs in this or any other thread? I am betting it is all fear mongering, hearsay, and wealth or money seeking and that like Pavloav’s dogs, we have been conditioned to go into a slobbering fit when we hear the buzz words M_O_N_S_A_N_T_O, GMO, or pesticides.
-
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, BjornBee, if you have read it.
love,
ziffa
I have never read it. Sounds like something I should. I am sure it contains not one truth, or one topic to consider, since the author is probably some greasy money grubbing writer. :-D
I'll do a search and see if I can be foolish enough to jump into the abyss and throw my money away. ;)
-
Here's an e-mail link I just got in my inbox. It's by Mother Earth News, so clearly biased. However, their list of what Monsanto has given us lines up exactly with what my husband and I have seen in our lives as farmers.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/healthy-people-healthy-planet/monsantos-false-advertising.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=02.13.12+HE&utm_campaign=2012+HE&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email (http://www.motherearthnews.com/healthy-people-healthy-planet/monsantos-false-advertising.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=02.13.12+HE&utm_campaign=2012+HE&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email)
•increasingly expensive seed
•a huge reduction in biodiversity, as Monsanto snaps up smaller seed companies and gains more ownership of seed strains
•lawsuits against farmers whose own crops have been contaminated by Monsanto’s patented seed
•overwhelming rises in the applications of its herbicides, including Roundup — which has been linked to a host of health and environmental problems
•the creation of “super weeds” and “super pests” that no herbicide or pesticide will control
Surprising how some claim all these statements are not true, and only fostered by writers who are out to make a buck. ;)
I had detailed some of these issues, like super weeds, over the years. Here is a link to an article called "Beekeeping 20 years from now", dated March 2011. http://www.bjornapiaries.com/beekramblings201112.html (http://www.bjornapiaries.com/beekramblings201112.html)
Easy searches comes up with multitudes of articles and research backing every point you made. Surprising to me how some claim that everything you mention is not happening, or at least is based on some leap of faith. It's not about supporting some belief of folks like Kellogg of the past, or every claim about organic food production. It is about supporting and offering something alternative to the path that billion dollar biotech firms are sending everyone down. But there will always be those who will go kicking and screaming, in attempts to be superior, etc., based on the alternative not being "perfect" enough.
If there was two choices...furthering the destruction as I see it by the likes of Monsanto with increased chemicals and GMO, or supporting (and even correcting what might be wrong with organics or alternative farming) other options that differ from the main system we now have, I think we might be wise to consider the latter. And for those that stand throwing rocks bashing those trying to do better than what Monsanto has to offer in farming, might as well be on the Monsanto payroll. They are doing their bidding. It might be disguised as trying to be smarter than others, but I'm sure Monsanto is just fine with it. Casting doubt and resistance come in many forms.
-
"After reading, re-reading, and reading my post one more time once again, I can not find even one instance where I mentioned M-o-n-s-a-n-t-o-'-s name. "
It's the title of the thread, you didn't have to tell us who or what the subject of discussion was. WE know by the context of the thread that you knew who you were talking about too.
"It is likely that the cultural subconscious conditioning we under go today prompted you into thinking that I did. It was the Russian scientist Ivan Petrovich Pavlova who was the first to study the effects of preconditioning when his dog heard Pavloav's dinner bell ring."
Looks like you like to toss out straw men arguments and distractions to make you sound smart.
"I can prove my statements about raw organic food killing humans."
Ok show me one where they died from eating raw organic and hadn't choked or ate tainted, or undercooked food.
The same pathogens you must be speaking of can, do, and have ALL been known to come from food found at your local grocer, convenience store, restaurant, fast food joint, and even home kitchens.
The pathogens WE are talking of, well, we know where they are coming from.
"What I am trying to do is to prevent us from taking a giant leap of faith off a cliff or into the abyss by following greasy self serving false prophets who often have a political agenda"
OK, I won't, I promise. I can clearly see what it does to people. ;-
Nobody is arguing that people haven't died from eating tainted food, same as nobody is going to believe you that they died just because the food was organic and raw.
" (think about that Global Warming thingy) and who (IMHO) at best are only out to sell cheesy books on the lecture circuit or else trick lonely little old ladies with too many cats, into remembering him in their wills. "
Not sure why you would want to go there, BUT...........Knowing how small you think this global warming "thingy" agenda is, I can understand how you have missed the boat on toxin producers too. The global warming scheme is about dealings much more than lining pockets from book sales and lectures. Someday I hope someone takes the time to show you just how BIG and BAD that bugger really is too.
I wouldn't be betting if I was you kingbee............ Ding!
-
Interesting how global warming has come into this. Because global warming (also known as "climate change" but makes little difference since the agenda is the same.....duh!) is part of the control and food games in the future. Why do you think so many big players have been investing in the biotech food industry?
Here is how it works....
fact....more than 50% of the worlds population is starving to some degree. Many folks live in countries with little industrial production (so trade in unlikely) or need for our trivial "things". But they do need food.
If you get any form of cap and trade passed, where we will be sending money to others countries that don't use their "credits", it creates the opportunity for the food giants to reap trillions.
You think we are going to send trillions of actual dollars? It does not work that way. We will work out deals to pay much of that money in the form of food. This of course will all be worked out by higher ups running the whole scheme.
So investment in the biotech industry, and purchasing large tracts of land (here and abroad), all can be seen today as this moves forward.
Then you tax the average citizen here for cap and trade, collect the money, and then pay for companies like Monsanto to dole out the seed, chemicals, and the actual food. (since they will own much of the mass produced crops like wheat, rice, etc.)
You really think anyone (beyond a few smaller organizations) really wants to teach others how to produce their own food in other countries? You think the promoton and marketing of virgin untainted lands in third world countries has any real concern in keeping it that way for long?
Right now, getting your fingers on aid packages to third world countries for things like food, are cumbersome and amount to pennies. Start passing around trillions in cap and trade credits, and that is what folks are working towards. That is where the real money will be.
And if you have patents on the seeds and a strangle hold on the farming industry both here and abroad, like Monsanto, they will cash in big time. No need to mess around with training folks in these countries (beyond fake store front PR campaigns to sell the false idea of anything but the truth). Monsanto and others will do all that real production for them.
When some suggest some "control" of the worlds food industry, this is what we are talking about. large international companies, and perhaps a few in Government will benefit. And don't be so foolish to think any of that food going overseas will be taxed to benefit the average citizen here. The gap of haves (multi-billion dollar industries) and you will continue to grow.
It will not come down to training or providing the infrastructure of these other countries to produce for themselves. It will come down to enslaving them in the system, taxing the American people, and having international biotech firms (headed by front people such as Bill gates) all making Billions.
Meanwhile, the real fools are those that think this "cap and trade" stuff is about the environment. Or that it is about helping third world countries beyond enslaving them and raping their resources.
That of course is what they want you to think.
And so it goes...... :roll:
-
Thanks Luvin and all.
I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago that it was a legal requirement to have foods containing GMO ingredients labelled as such. The interviewee was saying that it was taking some time because all foods had to be traced back to the source. Shortly afterwards, I saw some foods labelled as NOT containing GMO products. I can't see that with the amazing worldwide communication abilities we have that it should take more than minutes to trace back ingredients to determine if they are GMO or not. Obviously that legislation has been overturned because never since that time have I seen a food label admitting that it does contain GMO products.
Lone
-
Easy searches comes up with multitudes of articles and research backing every point you made. Surprising to me how some claim that everything you mention is not happening, or at least is based on some leap of faith. It's not about supporting some belief of folks like Kellogg of the past, or every claim about organic food production. It is about supporting and offering something alternative to the path that billion dollar biotech firms are sending everyone down. But there will always be those who will go kicking and screaming, in attempts to be superior, etc., based on the alternative not being "perfect" enough.
Thank you :)
Really, all the points are pretty much obvious through (un)common sense.
1. Increasingly expensive seed--just look it up!
2. A huge reduction in biodiversity--it seems obvious that the more and more GMO seeds are planted, the less and less diversity there will be. Unless there are huge new plots of farmland being created for diverse production. I'm pretty sure there are not. Huge plots of farmland are going to even MORE corn and soy (GMO) since the prices are so great right now.
3. Lawsuits against farmers whose own crops have been contaminated by Monsanto’s patented seed--again, just look it up
4. Overwhelming rises in the applications of its herbicides, including Roundup — which has been linked to a host of health and environmental problems--Look up RoundUp sales. This is anecdotal, but it is difficult to find a household on our 3-mile stretch of country road in which someone has not fought or lost to cancer. It is hard to find a family in our commutnity not touched by cancer. My husband lost his business partner last year at age 44 to colon cancer.
5. The creation of “super weeds” and “super pests” that no herbicide or pesticide will control--my husband attends conferences on new strategies for coping with these superweeds. Monsanto has changed its crop strategies for farmers to deal with this problem. Even Monsanto knows about it.
-
Thanks Luvin and all.
I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago that it was a legal requirement to have foods containing GMO ingredients labelled as such. The interviewee was saying that it was taking some time because all foods had to be traced back to the source. Shortly afterwards, I saw some foods labelled as NOT containing GMO products. I can't see that with the amazing worldwide communication abilities we have that it should take more than minutes to trace back ingredients to determine if they are GMO or not. Obviously that legislation has been overturned because never since that time have I seen a food label admitting that it does contain GMO products.
Lone
Monsanto fought it bigtime. Milk producers here tried to label their milk rGBH free, but Monsanto fought until they weren't allowed to do that. Labeling it free of rGBH "indicated that one was better than the other" and of course consumers would vote with their pocketbooks and Monsanto would lose. They fight labeling here.
So, right now, the ONLY way to be assured of GMO-free food is to buy certified organic.
-
Yes, Monsanto has done everything possible to block passage of any laws requiring the labeling of GMO's in our food supply. They don't want you to know how much of the stuff is currently in the food that you eat. What businesses develop a product that they claim is safe and superior, bring it to market, and then try to hide the fact that it exists in the products that are marketed? Monsanto is operating exactly that way.
They understand that the public is suspicious about eating GMO's and that most consumers do not want to eat them. Labeling would not be good for their business. Monsanto's solution is to cover it up and make it almost impossible for anyone to determine what does or doesn't contain GMO's. Far be it from us to make our own decisions and choices about what we will or won't eat. :-x
-
Not only that, but if/when/as something goes wrong, there is no tracking back to them. They aren't an ingredient.
-
Improper distribution has much to do w/ people starving.
t
-
You always have to read between the lines when someone clearly has an agenda like this organization, but I found a lot of interesting information in this.
-
It looks like labelling of GMO foods is still the legal requirement here in Australia. I shall have to check the soya bean section at the supermarket, because I certainly have never seen it labelled on canola oil or anything else.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/ (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/)
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquestionsongeneticallymodifiedfoods/part3labellingofgmfo4659.cfm (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/frequentlyaskedquestionsongeneticallymodifiedfoods/part3labellingofgmfo4659.cfm)
Lone
-
... labelling of GMO foods is still the legal requirement... I shall have to check the soya bean section at the supermarket, because I certainly have never seen it labelled on canola oil or anything else...
It is my impression that Australia produces a lot of canola or rape seed oil. I also know that Round Up Ready rape seed is approved for planting in Australia, because a lot of research has been conducted in Australia on gene flow between GMO to non GMO canola.
It is my humble opinion that any requirement that forces GMO crops to be so labeled is akin to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David. If non-GMO food is so much better than GMO food, then let the non-GMOs self identify and allow the consumer to choose between the two.
If you oppose GMOs and you are right, what are you frightened of. You still get to eat all the non GMO food your heart desires, and when all my children are born with two heads you'll have your proof. If however I am right, sometime in the not to distant future I expect a mea culpa of the first order from all those who opposed GMOs out of an irrational fear of the new and unknown.
-
GMO NAZIS! WOW
" If non-GMO food is so much better than GMO food, then let the non-GMOs self identify and allow the consumer to choose between the two. "
Its not a better or less good issue, its a right to know issue. If GMOs are labels, all non GMOs are identified as not GMOs because they are not labeled GMO, lol. If GMOs are so great and there is nothing to worry about then why worry about being labeled as GMO. Inform the consumer and let them decide. GMOs pay politicians big money to keep consumers in the dark.
-
X:X X:X Excellent advise. Letting the NON-GMO producers Self identify.
t
-
"It is my humble opinion that any requirement that forces GMO crops to be so labeled is akin to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David."
Do you listen to or put any real thought into your humble opinions before you type them kingbee? Marking Any food products packaging, and I don't don't care how you want to dress it up, is not equivalent to marking human beings for Identification & elimination.
"If non-GMO food is so much better than GMO food, then let the non-GMOs self identify and allow the consumer to choose between the two. "
Umm, how do I explain this so you understand and retain it kingbee......With the amount of GM pollens floating around, it is very difficult to have a crop that doesn't contain any gmo's. Not to mention the dollars it would take the innocent to examine every truck load to show the condition. You would think these products with gmo's would already come with a label that says "NEW AND IMPROVED"!!!!!! like many new and improved products if they were all they were cracked up to be. Wouldn't THAT make sense to even YOU kingbee.
"If you oppose GMOs and you are right, what are you frightened of."
What do you mean "if you are right" WE ARE RIGHT!!! I myself am fearful of Idiots dictating what we can and can't eat, and all of our original God created plant forms being contaminated by improvements and benefits so good that whatever they are in is secret. And I am frightened for our children's future dealing with them and what they will have produced.
" You still get to eat all the non GMO food your heart desires, and when all my children are born with two heads you'll have your proof."
We already have our proof. But if you feel good about letting kids (you probably won't be able to produce for a number of reasons I can think of anyway) eat junk, well, you will just be confirming how little you know about gmo's or care about infant human beings.
"If however I am right, sometime in the not to distant future I expect a mea culpa of the first order from all those who opposed GMOs out of an irrational fear of the new and unknown."
Yaaaawn!!!! You're not, and any major uprising in the near future likely wouldn't have anything to do with food labeling. Did you just admit there are unknowns about this new thingy? Why wouldn't you want to KNOW about something before you shove it in YOUR pie hole?
Joel
-
Wow, more excellent points to ponder. This is getting good now ;)
t
-
If you oppose GMOs and you are right, what are you frightened of. You still get to eat all the non GMO food your heart desires, and when all my children are born with two heads you'll have your proof. If however I am right, sometime in the not to distant future I expect a mea culpa of the first order from all those who opposed GMOs out of an irrational fear of the new and unknown.
You really think it comes down to the sole fact of whether you grow two heads?
Folks oppose GMO for a host of reasons. They include:
1) The monopoly ability of those designing the GMO crops. We have all heard of small farmers being sued for pollen drift onto their land, and the resulting tainted seed.
2) Environmental #1: Some see the environment as a complete ecosystem. And as example, if we take out all the aphids, to get better looking roses, we now break the food chain and lady bugs now have lost their number one food source. No aphids(Some say Yeah!) and then there is no more ladybugs. (Some say Boo!) One of the problem with GMO crops is their vast use, affecting more than what any local grower of roses would ever impact. GMO is everywhere, impacting everything. When GMO crops can break so many chains on a vast scale, side impacts are created. Insects by the way feed bats, frogs, birds, etc. And even if there was still enough insects for them to feed, the impacts on these other creatures are not yet known. Most of the environment evolved with certain nutrition requirements. All life needs a define mineral, vitamin, and complete balanced diet. GMO (Replacing genetic material of one species, with genetic material from another, changes that.) Some just on principle, feel messing with the ecosystem in this manner is wrong.
3) Environment #2: No doubt, I think GMO crops are harmful to bees. GMO crops, and neonicotinoid systemic pesticides (they go hand in hand), are no doubt affecting honey bees, as well as other beneficial pollinators. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2012/120111KrupkeBees.html (http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2012/120111KrupkeBees.html) As they continue the development of GMO crops, they may eventually have no need for pretreating the seeds with additional harmful chemicals. But that does not mean that the pollen will be any better to eat as they replace neonicotinoids with dna making the plant just as deadly. Of course, this is where "designer bees" will come into play as they design, produce, market, and sell, bees able to cope with the designer seeds. And even if they can design a honey be such as this, where does that leave the greater environment?
There are probably more reasons why folks oppose GMO. Probably like growth hormones in beef or milk, it will take years for some to see the impact. I guess if someone likes fully developed 7 year olds, able to carry their baby to term, you probably have no problems with growth hormones. Some want hormone free beef and milk, and some want GMO free foods.
But I do ask, what in the near future would have folks opposed to GMO, come around as you suggest?
I would suggest that with the increased technology we have going forward, that the environmental damage could be far greater than anything we see today. Unchecked industries (like Monsanto) usually make things worse, not better. Monsanto may micro-design the honey bee to keep some hapless beekeepers in business or for public relations. But nobody will give a crap about anything else.
And when beekeepers, with all their understanding of the wonders of nature as the bees taught them, are this easy as a pushover for the likes of Monsanto, I guess the general public will go down this path without even a whimper.
-
X:X
Now 'that's the BjornBee we all know and love ;)
t
-
If non-GMO food is so much better than GMO food, then let the non-GMOs self identify and allow the consumer to choose between the two.
Non-GMOs DO self-identify. It's called certified organic. Monsanto has fought vociferously to not let other people (rGBH-free) self identify.
As for the fear factor, I think that humans have evolved to be cautious of new things. It has probably often and historically saved our lives. I definitely don't claim GMOs will cause 2-headed humans, because I don't know. However, it has led to lab animals on GMO diets to become sterile. If you're fine with that, keep on eating what you're eating. I will continue to eat organic where I can and grow my own food.
-
... Monsanto fought it bigtime. Milk producers here tried to label their milk rGBH free, but Monsanto fought until they weren't allowed to do that...
Gee, then how come I just purchased a gallon of 2% milk at my local Alde grocery store that was labeled hormone free?
But generally this is a lie because all cows milk contains various bovine female sex hormones including the naturally occurring identical twin to rGBH. The problem with labeling milk as rGBH free is that no test currently exists (We found Osama bin Laden, but Uncle Sam can't find man made rGBS despite 20 years of trying) that can tell man made rGBH from naturally occurring rGBH. So even organic cows milk must be labeled as containing rGBH.
-
"Gee, then how come I just purchased a gallon of 2% milk at my local Alde grocery store that was labeled hormone free?"
Gee, I don't know why you did it. I doubt because it was hormone free though. GMO's to hormones now eh???
Kingbee, this may be way over your head, but there is a large difference from the hormones man makes/takes and feeds the critters for rapid weight gain, increased milk production etc, to the ones naturally produced by the animal all by their little ol self so they can do things the way they were designed too. SO,,, if the product said hormone free, it simply meant it didn't have any growth or lactose producing hormones given to it by the grower/producer.
Joel
-
... Monsanto fought it bigtime. Milk producers here tried to label their milk rGBH free, but Monsanto fought until they weren't allowed to do that...
Gee, then how come I just purchased a gallon of 2% milk at my local Alde grocery store that was labeled hormone free?
But generally this is a lie because all cows milk contains various bovine female sex hormones including the naturally occurring identical twin to rGBH. The problem with labeling milk as rGBH free is that no test currently exists (We found Osama bin Laden, but Uncle Sam can't find man made rGBS despite 20 years of trying) that can tell man made rGBH from naturally occurring rGBH. So even organic cows milk must be labeled as containing rGBH.
Obviously we're talking about ADDED rGBH, not what naturally occurs in cows.
This battle is still being fought state by state across the nation. I won't list all the sources, but a quick Google search on "rGBH labeling milk america" will give you a good start.
-
While I do not buy all my food from organic stores (I have issues with them also), and could be hardly considered an advocate for some of the more radicals out there with stances of bee conferences being marketed as being HFCS free,....
errr...I assume you are talking about our conference?
Do you cook with HFCS in your home? I'm no health food nut, but I don't like the taste of HFCS...at least how it comes across where I encounter it (have you tasted ketchup lately?).
We cook all the food for our conference from scratch using the same ingredients that we use in our own cooking. We say no HFCS because we don't use it....hardly seems radical to me....and the prevalence of HFCS in today's institutional food makes it worth noting.
We supply 3 really good meals a day at an unbelievably low price to the attendees. We address every single dietary issue that is brought to our attention and make sure that everyone has choices for every meal. Vegetarian, vegan, food allergy....all addressed at every meal. We buy as much produce as possible from local farms, and we serve the same kinds of food we would serve in our home....homemade, and without HFCS.
deknow
-
;)
-
I think it's funny that you think I look down on anyone who smokes, drinks or eats HFCS...I do all of the above at times. We've never "stopped" anyone from opening a ginger ale or soda....but we serve coffee, tea, mint iced tea (homemade from mint growing in our yard), and water...I can only recall one or two bringing soda in....no one yelled at them...nothing to stop them. There is a bar on site (open in the evenings) that serves drinks....I didn't notice anyone ordering soda, and I didn't check the sour mix for HFCS. There is a campfire at the camping area every night...plenty of beer and smoke (the one night we weren't too tired to attend, I drank a beer _and_ smoked a cigar).
We do serve meat at every supper and most lunches (chicken legs, sausage)...we stopped doing lunch meat when we moved to a venue with a better kitchen where we could prepare real food for lunch as well as dinner.
No one complains about the food....from vegan to carnivore (I'm more on the carnivore side of things)....and virtually no one feels the need to go elsewhere for food during the 6 days of the event.
There are all kinds of claims one can make about meals being served..."healthy" "home made" etc....saying that there is no HFCS served shows that we are not buying in institutional/cafeteria food.
I'm not saying this to encourage you to come.....I'm trying to make it clear what we do to counter misinformation offered out of ignorance.
deknow
-
...I don't see the point of just deleting a post. You could simply acknowledge that you were wrong, apologize and move on. It would make more sense in the archives.
deknow
-
I'm headed to an Organic Farming Conference--no Cheetos or soda there! It is really awesome food, but I still enjoy a good ol' bag of Culver's onion rings from time to time :)
-
Cool Luvin honey. Is that the MOSES conference held near LaCrosse? My wife and used to attend nearly every year during the mid 80's to late 90's, before the Government got too involved in deciding what organic meant :-D .
Now we just call our produce 'homegrown' and if anyone asks we gladly tell them what we do and don't do to our soil ;) .
t
-
That's the one!
-
... Monsanto has done everything possible to block passage of any laws requiring the labeling of GMO's in our food supply...
I have gone on record before advocating that organic food self identify itself in a positive manner as in, "Yes, this food is organic." But some want to force producers of regular food to wear a Star of David, similar to what the Nazis used to idenify or seperate the Jews of Europe. I would also oppose any labeling of a negative nature such as, "This package contains NO GMOs." Your rights to know end where my or anyone else's right to privacy begins. End of story.
-
If you are selling a consumable product to the public, you have no right to privacy in regards to that product.
-
... like growth hormones in beef or milk, it will take years for some to see the impact. I guess if someone likes fully developed 7 year olds, able to carry their baby to term, you probably have no problems with growth hormones...
Look at the facts. In Europe the use of rGBH in the production of dairy products is strictly forbidden. Yet today European girls are reaching puberty at roughly the same early age that girls in the USA are. The ability to carry a child to term or the age at which a young girl reaches puberty is highly dependant on the amount of fat that girl has stored in her body.
Don't accept my humble word for it. Look at the examples of female Olympic gymnast. To these young women reaching puberty by 16 or 17 or maybe even before age 20 is a major disaster and a career killer, and there is hardly a gram of fat on their bodies. The prepubescent teenager Nadia Comanich of Romania in the 1976 youtube link is just one example.
http://gymnastics.teamusa.org/news/article/4431 (http://gymnastics.teamusa.org/news/article/4431)
Nadia comaneci-first perfect ten in history (1976 Montreal) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m2YT-PIkEc#)
The good thing in all of this is that we both are being forced to think. Think about it!!!
-
If you are selling a consumable product to the public, you have no right to privacy in regards to that product.
Tell it to the Coca-Cola Company, their secret formula goes back to 1886. Maybe you just want to know what Colonel Sanders 11 secret herbs and spices are, well you're out of luck. There is hardly any ready to eat food that has a comprehensive list of ingredients.
On the other hand, products like Round Up that enjoy patten protection from the US government are forced to list all of its ingredients along with the formula. Help me out here.
-
... Monsanto has done everything possible to block passage of any laws requiring the labeling of GMO's in our food supply...
I have gone on record before advocating that organic food self identify itself in a positive manner as in, "Yes, this food is organic." But some want to force producers of regular food to wear a Star of David, similar to what the Nazis used to idenify or seperate the Jews of Europe. I would also oppose any labeling of a negative nature such as, "This package contains NO GMOs." Your rights to know end where my or anyone else's right to privacy begins. End of story.
Well, kingbee, I'm not invading your privacy. If I asked you personal questions about your life, I would be trying to invade your privacy. Knowing what I eat has nothing to do with your privacy.
When I am selling a product, I have no feeling whatsoever that I have a right to privacy in how that product was grown, processed, cleaned and sold. In fact, I consider that concept absolutely crazy. If someone is about to put my product on their skin or in their body, they have THE right to know all about it. I realize I will lose some customers that way and gain others. Doesn't matter. It's a matter of honesty and trust.
Monsanto doesn't want things labeled because it knows consumers are cautious about GMO and wouldn't buy the products. It would destroy their business, as nearly everything we eat now is from GMO ag.
Our entire food system is built on so many atrocities (see McD's decision to stop using "pink slime" in its burgers) that we absolutely cannot know about them, or we will stop buying that food.
I'm not in organic to make big bucks. I'm in it because I believe in it, because I wouldn't feed my family any other way. I don't need to work hard to convert people, as they're already on a waiting list for my veggie CSA, without me saying a single word to them.
Even though the RoundUp formula is listed, it was patent protected for a certain amount of time, then the patent came off and that product is up for grabs in the general market, now known as glyphosate. People were not allowed to duplicate it during the patented time.
-
X:X X:X
C'mon Spring. We got the fever bad around here :lau:
t
-
:lau:
If I was to use Nadia as an example in my own argument, you would be all over me.
I hardly think giving steroids to a young girl, and her being on a 14 hour a day training regiment, hardly qualifies for basis of comparisons of fat levels, or development in regards to other girls. We know stress and rigorous training delays development in young girls. Hardly a model to compare to the development of other girls who have growth hormones and are far less, if any, being pushed 14 hours day in workouts or training for the Olympics in specialized schools with all day long programs.
Your justifications and "proof" are funny to say the least.
-
>>If you are selling a consumable product to the public, you have no right to privacy in regards to that product.
X:X X:X X:X
>>End of story.
-
... If I was to use Nadia as an example in my own argument, you would be all over me...
I would not, you give me to much credit BjornBee. Besides this is a credible scientific fact that is accepted by scientist and medical professionals everywhere.
... I hardly think ... a young girl... being on a 14 hour a day training regiment... qualifies for basis of comparisons of fat levels... in regards to other girls... We know stress and rigorous training delays development in young girls...
So are you saying that because Nadia burned through calories at a fearful rate and because she only ate enough to train, making her almost anorexic, that being anorexic like does not delay puberty? You can't have it both ways. If a 14 year old Nadie living in Rumania is anorexic like and prepubescent at the same time, then why is not a 14 year old girl in the USA who is over weight and postpubesecent by age ten not a proper basis for comparison? Me thinks that you are arguing for the sake of argument.
Anyway any medical professional with the respect of his or her fellow medical professionals will tell you that the amount of food that the body of a young girl perceives to be available to her (stored as fat) is a major reason that girl enters puberty. The amount of harmones she ingests from dairy products (either organic or none organic) is a very, very, very, small and tiny part of the reason. Its a little like stimulating brood production in our bees. When the queen perceives a flow in progress she increases egg laying activity.
-
Quote from KingBee to Bjorn Bee: "me thinks you are aguing for the sake of arguing"
There's an abundance of that around here.
t
-
I am not talking in circles. I honestly can't even really imagine what hormone or steroids she may of been on. There are many. I do know that stressfull regimented workouts, delay puberty in situations as seen with Olympic training facilities of 30-40 years ago. Using Nadia, for any justifications, is a poor choice.
But the point is, you keep bringing "proof" such in Nadia, and GMO experts Penn & Teller, to support your positions, even though others have clearly asked for more than your usual rhetoric and weak positions. You talk in circles, try make rationalizations that do not add up, and for the most part, surprises me in what you think.
Like....suggesting every food product and chemical is fully tested by the EPA, USDA, or other government agency. I guess your belief is that rubber stamped "purchased" chemical approvals as seen with clothianidin that we are all aware of, is part of that oversight.
Then your statement that Monsanto does not want to control the food industry, and passing it off as "opinion" is icing on the cake. Biotechs, hand held devices, cars, whatever the product, I don't know too many businesses who don't want to be number one or have a dominate position in the market. That don't want to dominate the market. That don't want to make as much as they can. Monsanto wants everyone to use their products...period! And they have some rather clear ways of ensuring farmers do use them. I guess in your mind multi-billion dollar international biotech companies have no marketing plan, no lobbyists, and lack political clout either. They are just good hearted folks. :roll:
Lastly, although I could go on much longer, your claim that all these patents will be open to the public, shows great problems with your positions. On this forum is another thread on this subject.
http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,30918.0.html (http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,30918.0.html)
It details Monsantos willingness to first try to delay, then probably buy another 20 years, and lastly, just changing the profile of their patents, and releasing another version, keeping the process going. You think they don't have the ability to design another GMO crop with "assassin" capabilities making the first release ineffective? Especially when they know the winds will carry the pollen onto every farm as they already demonstrated. I will not call you gullible. but I will suggest you sound a bit close to shareholder or paid spokesman for the company.