|
|
Posted: 3/6/2012 9:23:48 AM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT By Dr. Mercola
Genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes could be released into the U.S. environment as early as January 2012. A private firm is planning to initiate the release of the GM mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. The first GM mosquito release took place in the Cayman Islands in 2009, and the second in Malaysia in 2010. Now, residents of the Florida Keys, like those of the Cayman Islands and Malaysia, will be subjected to these genetically manipulated insects, without having any say in the matter. Natural Society reports: "The mosquitoes are genetically modified with a gene designed to kill them unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. Offspring of the GM mosquitoes will receive this same lethal gene which will kill the offspring before it can ever reach adulthood. As more genetically modified mosquitoes mate with wild mosquitoes, the idea is that more and more offspring will be produced with the lethal gene, thereby reducing the mosquito population. Of course the risks these mosquitoes post ... are highly unknown ... With the release of genetically modified insects could come the downfall of both local and global ecosystems ..." While the biotech industry remains steadfast in their official stance that genetically engineered foods and animals are safe and provide valuable benefits, reality is telling us otherwise… Genetic Engineering of Plants and Animals is in Full Swing Unfortunately, many people are still completely in the dark about the genetic engineering taking place, both in plants and animals. I've written numerous articles about the health dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods, and while I've not covered the issue of genetically modified animals to any great extent, this too is taking place. For example, sheep that are 15 percent human have already been developed in an effort to create spare parts for organ transplants, and goats have been engineered to deliver spider silk in their milk. Cows have also been genetically engineered to create something more akin to human breast milk, in an effort to make cows milk more nutritious...The list goes on, but you probably get the gist. While the rationale behind all of these experiments appears altruistic, the fact of the matter is that we're playing with and artificially altering carefully balanced systems. And when we do so, unexpected ramifications are virtually guaranteed to occur, because we simply do not understand all there is to know as of yet… As for the release of genetically engineered "suicide" mosquitoes, what will happen to the local ecosystem when the mosquito population decreases or is eliminated entirely? While you and I may abhor mosquitoes, and while they do carry diseases like dengue fever and malaria, they are also primarily a food source for other life forms... Taking the myopic view that we simply want to eradicate a disease-carrying insect is dangerous in the extreme once you start to contemplate the impact it may have on the entire food chain, from the bottom to the top! What exactly will happen when we increasingly begin to replace natural-born life forms with genetically engineered versions? The truth is, we don't know! But we can make educated guesses, based on the best evidence available, that the end result will likely be less than ideal for human survival… It may seem obvious that no one would trade financial gains for the extermination of all life on earth, but that is in essence the path we've set ourselves on, with the ever-expanding array of genetically modified seeds and animals. Genetically Modified Foods Already Linked to Reduced Fertility Genetically engineered (GE) corn- and soy have already been shown to reduce fertility in animals, and glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's weed killer Roundup, which is heavily used on GE crops, has also been shown to alter fertility. For example, female rats fed GE (Roundup Ready) soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycle, compared to rats fed organic soy or those raised without soy. According to researchers, if women experience similar changes in the uterus lining and altered hormonal levels, it might increase the risk of retrograde menstruation, in which menstrual discharge travels backwards into your body rather than through your uterus. This can cause a disease known as endometriosis, which may lead to infertility. The disorder can also produce pelvic and leg pain, gastrointestinal problems, chronic fatigue, and a wide variety of other symptoms.Genetically modified soybeans are called Roundup Ready. They contain a bacterial gene that allows the plants to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn't kill the plant, its active ingredient, glyphosate, actually accumulates in the beans themselves, which are then consumed by livestock and humans. There is actually so much glyphosate in GE soybeans that when they were introduced, Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels 200-fold! Glyphosate Poses Risk to Female Reproductive Health Although there are only a handful of studies on the safety of GE soybeans, there is considerable evidence that glyphosate—especially in conjunction with the other ingredients in Roundup—wreaks havoc with the endocrine and reproductive systems. Glyphosate throws off the delicate hormonal balance that governs the whole reproductive cycle. It interferes with aromatase, which produces estrogen, and it's also highly toxic to the placenta in pregnant women. In a 2009 French study, scientists discovered that glyphosate can kill the cells in the outer layer of the human placenta (the trophoblast membrane), which in turn can kill the placenta. A mere 1/500th the amount needed to kill weeds was able to kill these cells! The amount is so small, according to the study's authors, that the "residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from Roundup formulation-treated crops" could be enough to "cause cell damage and even [cell] death." If the endocrine function of the placenta is destroyed, then ovarian and endometrial function may also suffer, and the end result could be a miscarriage. It's important to remember that glyphosate can accumulate in your body, allowing its toxic effects to grow worse with repeated consumption of foods containing these Roundup Ready crops. Clearly, this may become a serious concern for the next generation, as most young children—girls and boys alike—growing up today are fed processed foods containing GE ingredients on a daily basis, year after year... Glyphosate Affects Testosterone and Harms Male Reproductive Health Too Last month, an animal study published in the journal Toxicology in Vitro, found that glyphosate induces necrosis and apoptosis (cell death) in rat testicular cells in vitro, and decreases testosterone production even at low exposure levels. The authors write: "Roundup is being used increasingly in particular on genetically modified plants grown for food and feed that contain its residues. Here we tested glyphosate and its formulations on mature rat fresh testicular cells from 1 to 10,000 ppm, thus from the range in some human urine and in environment to agricultural levels. We show that from 1 to 48 hours of Roundup exposure Leydig cells are damages. Within 24-48 hours this formulation is also toxic on the other cells, mainly by necrosis, by contrast to glyphosate alone, which is essentially toxic on Sertoli cells. Later it also induces apoptosis at higher doses in germ cells and in Sertoli/germ cells co-cultures. At lower non toxic concentrations of Roundup and glyphosate (1ppm), the main endocrine disruption is a testosterone decrease by 35 percent. The pesticide has thus an endocrine impact at very low environmental doses, but only a high contamination appears to provoke an acute rat testicular toxicity. This does not anticipate the chronic toxicity which is insufficiently tested, and only with glyphosate in regulatory tests." GMOs Have Never Been Proven Safe, Nor Beneficial… Last year, I interviewed Dr. Philip Bereano on the topic of genetic engineering. Dr. Bereano has spent the last 30 years investigating genetic engineering of crops, animals, and humans. His work led him to participate in the negotiation of two international treaties under the United Nations that dealt with issues relating to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In that interview, he shares his perspective on the complete lack of safety of GE foods, stating: "First of all, we need to understand what we mean by the word safe. Actually, in terms of the academic literature, "safe" refers to "an acceptable level of risk." It doesn't refer to situations where there is no risk. Most of us drive in cars all the time and consider it to be safe even though we know that people are killed and injured in automobiles frequently. We have to understand that safe equals acceptable risk. The problem with calling genetically engineered organisms safe is that there are no valid risk assessments being done on them. There is no research, really, being done into the health or environmental effects of a genetically engineered organism. Certainly no work that is published in the open peer-reviewed literature, or that isn't proprietary. Corporations promoting these things claim that they have done research, but you can't get any information on it because it's all claimed to be proprietary. Under what is known now as the precautionary principle—which is what your grandparents used to teach you about "looking before you leap"—the only prudent course of action is to NOT proceed with something which has potential risks and only potential benefits until you know a little bit more about it." I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, despite the fact that international treaties enshrine the precautionary principle; most notably the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, which about 175 countries have signed, the United States appears to have no such intentions. The US has repeatedly shunned the idea of 'safety first,' and continues to approve new GE foods despite vigorous objections from the public and various consumer advocate groups, while simultaneously refusing to label such foods… Another way to ensure safety (or acceptable level of risk), is to conduct the necessary research to evaluate the potential environmental- and human health risks involved prior to condoning the use of GE crops and animals—but that's not being done either! He also brought up another important point in that interview, which is that for all the benefits touted, they're primarily potential benefits. And again, the reality is that in addition to a lack of proof of safety, there's also a glaring lack of proof of actual benefit According to Dr. Bereano: "There is quite a bit of research that has indicated that there may be health risks, but no funds are available to test this research by replication, for extension, for further studies, and so forth. And very often the scientists who have performed that [independent] research… have become ostracized instead of recognized for opening up an important area of inquiry."… GE Crops are Failing Miserably Virtually all the claims of benefit of genetically engineered (GE) crops – increased yields, more food production, controlled pests and weeds, reductions in chemical use in agriculture, drought-tolerant seeds, and so on – have failed to materialize. The Global Citizens' 2011 Report, aptly named: The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes, states: Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests … Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant "superweeds" by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds. Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, this has not been the case. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them. Monsanto has been claiming that through genetic engineering it can breed crops for drought tolerance and other climate-resilient traits. This is a false promise. Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GE foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause health damage. Mounting Evidence Links GE Foods with Harm to Animal- and Human Health… Monsanto insists that genetically modified (GM) foods, whether plant or animal, are no different from conventionally grown varieties, but the research simply does NOT support this claim. Here is just a sampling of the unsavory findings associated with GM foods: GM pea protein caused lung damage in mice Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce GM potatoes may cause cancer in rats Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells Bacteria in your gut can take up DNA from GM food The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning GM foods lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, specifically the kidney, liver, heart and spleen Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties Bt corn caused a wide variety of immune responses in mice, commonly associated with diseases such as arthritis, Lou Gehrig's disease, osteoporosis, and inflammatory bowel disease Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products Even more disturbing is the discovery of a brand new micro-fungal organism associated with something called Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in GE soy. This is something brand new to science, courtesy of GE crops… The mysterious organism is also found in a large variety of livestock given GE feed. These animals experience both infertility and high rates of spontaneous abortions. Last month I interviewed Dr. Don Huber on this issue. If you missed it, please do take the time to listen to it now, as this may be one of the most important issues everyone needs to be aware of. Dr. Huber makes it very clear that we simply cannot continue in the direction we're currently headed… The Time is Ripe to Fight Back Many still don't realize just how much of our food supply has been genetically engineered (GE). As of this year, 93 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered, as are: 86 percent of all corn 93 percent of canola 93 percent of cottonseed oil Between 2008 and 2009, a full 95 percent of all sugar beets planted were also Roundup Ready. This means that virtually every processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "100% USDA Organic" label is likely to contain at least one GE component! All is not lost, however, as we now have a practical plan to end this disaster. By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and launching a ballot initiative in California for 2012, which will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, our plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GM foods thing of the past. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and even the Environmental Working Group are getting actively involved. But we do need your help. Here's how you can get involved: If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) in early November for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California! Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to have to label genetically engineered foods. Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter. You can also join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or Twitter In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed. You can also look for foods that are "non-GMO verified" by the Non-GMO Project. Important Action Item: Support California's Ballot Initiative to Label GMO's! In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to "immediately" require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired. Fortunately, 24 US states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012. Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns. Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year's ballot. I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the US states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2012 11:42:15 AM
I'm more concerned about contrails.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2012 5:45:56 PM
Maybe, but, I see this as potentially causing deaths, at least premature ones. It's already proven that the claims of 'higher yields" are bs, and lab animals fed this are far more likely to develop cancers, lung problems, premature aging, reduced fertility in females, a testosterone decrease by 35 percent in males, lung damage in mice offspring, five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce, cancer in rats, Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells, Bacteria in your gut can take up DNA from GM food, The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning, GM foods lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, specifically the kidney, liver, heart and spleen Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Bt corn caused a wide variety of immune responses in mice, commonly associated with diseases such as arthritis, Lou Gehrig's disease, osteoporosis, and inflammatory bowel disease Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.
It's not a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2012 7:24:40 PM
Clifnote please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2012 10:56:41 PM
The enemy is us. Unfortunately.
I'd like for foods to be properly labeled and then let the consumer decide. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2012 9:09:38 AM
![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2012 6:35:00 PM
Wait... you mean there really is a way to kill my babymaker? Fuck yeah
![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2012 8:21:24 PM
[Last Edit: 3/8/2012 8:25:36 PM by Kacer]
Yeah, it's not JUST reproduction that's an issue...
but I have to agree, make the franken foods be labeled, when they did in Europe, NO ONE wanted it... Originally Posted By LRdrvr:
The enemy is us. Unfortunately. I'd like for foods to be properly labeled and then let the consumer decide. And I'd think somewhat differently IF the promises of higher yields and weeds all gone were reality, but NO they're not, not even a tiny bit, and many health concerns are becoming apparent. Farmers are having to deal w/ superweeds, it's a huge FAIL, and I hope Monsanto is exposed appropriately and ruined by this. Also if they were JUST taking out one dna strand and putting in a diff. dna strand, sans the roundup weedkiller deal..... maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2012 8:22:58 PM
Originally Posted By XCRmonger:
Wait... you mean there really is a way to kill my babymaker? Fuck yeah ![]() Yeah, by killing you along w/it, perhaps, albeit 10-20 years after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2012 8:23:59 PM
Originally Posted By BeautifulStranger:
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n196/BeautifulStranger_13/tumblr_lgda0aCotK1qh4nf6o1_500.gif
this |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2012 9:29:49 PM
BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2012 7:18:00 PM
Originally Posted By Barbara:
BS. Umm.... not really backing that up w/ any studies... just your opinion? Hold Monsanto stock? Virtually all the claims of benefit of genetically engineered (GE) crops – increased yields, more food production, controlled pests and weeds, reductions in chemical use in agriculture, drought-tolerant seeds, and so on – have failed to materialize. The Global Citizens' 2011 Report, aptly named: The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes, states:
Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GE crops have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests … Herbicide resistant crops such as Roundup Ready cotton can create the risk of herbicide resistant "superweeds" by transferring the herbicide resistance to weeds. Despite claims that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will lower the levels of chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) used, this has not been the case. This is of great concern both because of the negative impacts of these chemicals on ecosystems and humans, and because there is the danger that increased chemical use will cause pests and weeds to develop resistance, requiring even more chemicals in order to manage them. Monsanto has been claiming that through genetic engineering it can breed crops for drought tolerance and other climate-resilient traits. This is a false promise. Among the false claims made by Monsanto and the Biotechnology industry is that GE foods are safe. However, there are enough independent studies to show that GE foods can cause health damage. http://thecorporation.com/blog.cfm?view=BLOG_POST&blog_id=428 However, Monsanto's claims aren't in sync with the facts on the ground; where a thirteen year study showed that:
"the UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices." You can read the UCS findings and see for yourself: Failure to Yield Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops http://www.nffc.net/Issues/Farmer%20to%20Farmer/page-farmertofarmer.htm For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. + U.S.: MONSANTO CORN UNLIKELY TO HELP DROUGHT-STRICKEN FARMERS The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced it would allow unlimited planting of Monsanto's drought-resistant corn. But Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman points out that the company and the USDA have admitted the crop will fare only modestly better than current conventional varieties under low- and moderate-level drought conditions. This means that this corn will be useful only for a fraction of corn acres – just 15 percent by USDA estimates. In addition, there are several types of new non-GM drought-tolerant corn that are likely to do as well as or better than Monsanto's corn. Data suggest that conventional breeding is producing drought tolerance 2-3 times faster than genetic engineering. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13571 Successful non-GM drought-resistant crops: http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/31-need-gm/12319 Pure capitalism = supply and demand If they're so proud of their GMO products, let them label it and promote its virtues and let the consumer decide. Farmer feeds GMO corn to his pigs: they all become sterile. of course that was likely MOST of what they ate, but still.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2012 2:33:35 AM
Well, in this case, BS meant Beautiful Stranger, but I guess while we're on the topic:
I'm no fan of GM foods, or Monsanto, but can you explain the mechanism for corn to make adult women sterile? Plus to be honest..the whole title was a little ridiculous. OHMYGODYOUROVARIESWILLFALLOUT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2012 5:00:05 AM
[Last Edit: 3/11/2012 5:19:00 AM by Kacer]
Originally Posted By Barbara:
Well, in this case, BS meant Beautiful Stranger, but I guess while we're on the topic: I'm no fan of GM foods, or Monsanto, but can you explain the mechanism for corn to make adult women sterile? Plus to be honest..the whole title was a little ridiculous. OHMYGODYOUROVARIESWILLFALLOUT! IF it were a simple "genetically modified" food like taking a fish gene and putting it in corn, I agree... makes no sense, but add some roundup (a pesticide) TO the genetics, and you wonder why introducing poison to a food might possibly cause sterility? Not just spraying it on/around a plant... but making the poison a part of the plant itself. Really? And as far as I know... no ovaries falling out.... just causing sterility, but not by them falling out. Again.... Farmer feeds GMO corn to his pigs: they all become sterile. And if you are proficient in legaleese: How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2012 6:59:14 AM
Well, Sarah Fluke will be happy, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2012 10:34:10 AM
Ah. Here's another link for farmers.... not so much pointing out health issues, just more fail Monsanto. Why Monsanto Thought Weeds Would Never Defeat Roundup
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2012 5:08:57 PM
[Last Edit: 3/16/2012 5:11:16 PM by Gamma762]
GM crops are not generally used for direct human consumption, but are often used as feed for livestock as well as non food uses like biofuel production and the like.
The GM crops business was initially driven by intense scrutiny and regulation of agricultural chemicals. So instead of a few low level chemicals in the environment which break down in a month or two at most, we now have chemicals built in to the DNA of the crops themselves. Thanks EPA & clean water act. Glyphosate-tolerant crops have made a lot of farming operations very lazy and overuse of glyphosate pesticide is a big problem. IME the smaller the farm, the less of a problem it is, the small guys have a better sense of where needs what and are more careful with $, versus the big guys who just high dose spray everything 2x or 3x a year because they don't have time to actually look at the field first. It's often the same offenders who aren't planting their required percentage of refuge crops or other best practices to prevent/reduce the occurrence of resistant pest weeds and insects. All the regulations trying their best to drive small farmers out of business are only making the situation worse. High fuel prices also have a direct correlation to glyphosate use, if the cost of spraying is less than the fuel cost for tillage, a lot more spraying will be happening instead of tillage. There is movement toward less widespread use of glyphosate, substituting targeted use of other crop-specific herbicides. It's tough because many chemical options are so encumbered with regulations that it really drives farmers and service companies into using glyphosate. Monsanto's insane legal claims and lawsuit happy approach as well as the legal system's enabling/encouragement of their insanity are a tragedy of epic proportions and only serve to prevent open scientific examination of the situation. Perversely it also prevents people from avoiding using their products which I'm sure was their intent. A giant problem is that there is not a viable way in the general agricultural production market to separate GM from non GM versions of the same crop. Unless you're growing your own corn for livestock feed or something like that, its just not practical. About the best that could be hoped for is a large percentage change of production acres going to non-GM crops and some of that segregated at the local level and directed toward livestock feed, along with the overall percentage of GM reduced in the bulk supply market. And as best I can tell the way to make that happen would be a reduction in regulatory burden on use of non-glyphosate crop specific herbicides, incentives to seed companies and the old traditional seed suppliers for non-GM crop development, and a reversal of some of the legal precedents that effectively give Monsanto claim and control over virtually all farm crops. And if you think frankenweeds are a concern now, just wait until the roundup-ready forage crop seeds come onto the market (shudders) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2012 6:41:57 AM
Originally Posted By Barbara:
BS. Love ya!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 7:59:38 AM
Considering the major biotech firms that do the GMO are the same lovely sack of assholes that brought us all the following
Agent orange. The Holocaust experiments. Floride in the water. DDT. SV-40 tainted vacines.... Yeah just a hell fuck ya let me eat shit designed to rip the guts out of bugs because you say it is safe.... LIKE AGENT ORANGE!!! |
|