GMO dangers and animal miscarriages

[brownegger]

Thanks ChickenAl for backing me up here and those of you who have. I am not spreading hype or hysteria with any of what I am saying. To say the conventional crops and organics are nutritionally the same is nonsense. Organic crops use no chemical pesticides of any sort, use solid crop rotation techniques, and are fertilized with natural sources including manure, ash, and composted grass and leaves. Conventional crops including GE crops have been fertilized with chemical fertilizers, use liberal amounts of various pesticides, and have an ever increasingly poor level of rotation. I have been seeing farmers recently growing corn in the same fields year after year. The soil becomes depleted and that means more chemical fertilizers are necessary to grow a similar looking quality of a crop. Is the crop of any more quality? How could it be? The studies which have been conducted to show equality between the two method types (Organic vs. Conventional) have been fabricated and you would be wise to consider this! Few people remain as healthy as they could be while eating large quantities of conventionally produced crops. Most of the conventionally produced ingredients have been broken down and heavily processed then added to nearly everything in the supermarket. Bear Foot, I'm sorry but, you really need to do more research and really research deep. It basically comes down to making your own decision through logic if you can't believe anything you see, trust me, it is kept that way for good reasons! Logically, does it sound good, the processes that Monsanto uses to outright "create" new crop strains or promote the liberal use of roundup or any other chemical products that the company designates compatible with its new novelty crops? What is logically more healthy, a crop grown in chemicals or a crop grown using sustainable methods without any environmental concerns? Organic crops may not feed the world by offering 100% organic foods to everyone all the time. I am not that naive! I do understand the uses of some chemicals whether it be fertilizers or pesticides will be unfortunately necessary. Why are we tampering with genetics of plants that sustain our lives. The genetic engineering only benefits the bottom line of the corporation, not any of us! A better question is why are we not given a choice, at the very least, this should be the fair conclusion. To have everything labeled so that we can all make our own decisions. Also, the non-GE alternatives must remain as affordable as the GE alternatives to keep things fair.

 

[Cindy in PA]

Quote:
That's probably why most of the anti GMO sites are promoting "organic" as a better way, when studies have proven organic crops are no more nutritious than conventional

If GMO's were as harmful as they would lead you to believe, half the worlds population would be dead, and all the livestock would be about to go extinct

Not true, the GMOs have been in our food a relatively short period of time in the whole scheme of things. Just label them & we can go from there. If you choose & trust GMOs, go for it! When these companies fight labeling (like in the early 90s with BGH in milk), you have to wonder. They say there is nothing wrong with it, but are afraid to let us choose. They wouldn't even let milk producers not using the hormone label their products back then, why??? What are they afraid of? I avoid GMOs when I can, don't spend a lot of time worrying, but sure get ticked when I see stuff added that is not necessary like my tuna.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

Quote:
Brownegger:

Any proof to the claims you mentioned, or are you just spouting gibberish you read on the internet.

Beartooth is correct, studies show no difference in the nutrient content between commercially grown crops and organic crops.

You should also take a look at what actually occurs on US farms. For example, on our farm we use corn hybrids with built-in protection from certain pests. This eliminates our use of Organophosphates, certainly a good thing for both ME and the environment. We also use hog manure as a fertilizer on our fields to bolster Organic Matter and reduce our use of purchased fertilizers.

We also use cover crops to improve soil tilth, scavenge nutrients, and reduce weed competition. This works very well in our No-Till operation.

Finally we are 100% no-till which reduces erosion, improves water percolation, and reduces run-off. Without the use of Glyphosate we would not be as successful in our No-Till operation. The pay off for us is conservation of the soil and protection of the waterways coupled with less fossil fuel use on our farm, obviously the trade off is the reliance on certain products to reduce competition from non-crop plants.

Jim

 

[NYREDS]

Question: Do you understand the concept of long-term ill effects on health, like cancer for example? I'm almost shocked that anybody is still disputing that glyphosphate is harmful to us over the long term. I say "almost" because nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to the right wing red staters that dominate this forum.

As a Libertarian Blue Stater I take offense at your comment. Why do you find it necessary to insult people who disagree with you? It's a fact that much of the so-called science surrounding GMO opposition & many other environmental issues lacks a great deal when it comes to true scientific method. Some people still prefer facts to emotions.​

 

[Medicine Man]

Quote:
As a Libertarian Blue Stater I take offense at your comment. Why do you find it necessary to insult people who disagree with you? It's a fact that much of the so-called science surrounding GMO opposition & many other environmental issues lacks a great deal when it comes to true scientific method. Some people still prefer facts to emotions.

I was talking about the glyphosphate, not GMO. I guess you didn't read very carefully.

 

[Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay]

Quote:
The issue around the labelling of this milk was NOT about the use of PosiLac rather that they wanted to use "Contains NO hormones" which is misleading and factually incorrect.

Labelling with "Made from milk from cows not treated with rBGH" is correct and used on dairy products these days.

Jim

 

[brownegger]

Jim,
I applaud your efforts to reduce your impacts and please understand that my attack is not on farmers such as yourself. I grew up on a farm and lived in what used to be a primarily farming community. There is no misconception on my part of what farming has become, impacts past and present, and where things are going. I am happy to see that many farmers are utilizing No-Till more and more, at least in my area. The fact that you spread manure over your fields is great but you are the exception rather than the rule behind farming now a days. It is true, with the growing awareness of environmental impacts, small farms are springing up all over. Many people are doing more for themselves and it is a great movement....Backyard Chickens is no exception to this! I am glad that your conscious lies within doing the best you can for the environment through thoughtful farming practices. Read very carefully into what I have stated, there is no gibberish there, you can believe that! Some of you may be missing the point of what I am saying.

That corn you plant with "built in protection" is a novelty item with a long list of unknown long-term repercussions and unanswered questions. You cannot replant your seed from year to year from your crops when they have "built in protection". If you do, it is in violation of patent terms set forth by Monsanto or any other seed companies using Monsanto's technology! What is right about creating a product such as a plant that has transgenic qualities meaning that it can affect chosen non-"built in protection" crops through pollination. Now, your neighbor or someone Else's neighbor who did not want GE crops now, has the possibility of being contaminated by the GE crop genes. Once this has happened, your neighbor now falls under provisions of Monsanto's patents though he never planted the seed in the first place! Trust me this is happening...not gibberish!

I agree that many anti-GMO folks lose their following because of overly emotionally ruled arguments and misstated facts. The studies on both sides I believe are just as biased. It becomes a matter of who is selling their side more effectively. Monsanto has spent millions, if not billions of dollars to figure out just how to get inside your head. They have created a website with heartwarming stories of how they intend to reverse famine, help families and farmers, and save the world! THINK! When you have a multi-billion dollar corporation painting the picture...it can look however they want it to! Same goes to the salesmen who sell these crops, they have been sold themselves and have learned to overcome any objection. Trust me when I say that when regulatory officials are getting kickbacks, it is possible for things to slip through the cracks, so to speak. It is easy to believe the studies they produce in favor of GE crops and all the supporting arguments behind their claims of "substantial equivalence". When you have billions of dollars at stake, you can tell your story however you like, as long as people are buying it, your corporation continues to grow. It's all about money and power, them before us. Our government proves this every day! Look at the pharmaceutical industry, would you take every pill they said was safe! Pharmaceutical corporations have a lot to gain also by lying about safety of their drugs. How many new drugs does it take to cure the many new illnesses they seem to come up with? Look at the BIG picture. Why do we need so many drugs? Why are so many new sicknesses and old enemies growing in occurrence? They say it is because of poor diets among a growing majority. Why are the diets poor or what is lacking quality with our diets? They say it is the processed foods. Is it the processed food or the ingredients used in growing crops and processing foods? The truth is, we may never really know! Take a logical look at the BIG picture and draw your own conclusions about what makes sense and how the corporations may have interrelated agendas. The media, the laboratories, THE MONEY, controls what the public sees and believes. Who controls the MONEY? The corporations do! None of this is gibberish, you can take that to the bank!

 

[NYREDS]

Quote:
As a Libertarian Blue Stater I take offense at your comment. Why do you find it necessary to insult people who disagree with you? It's a fact that much of the so-called science surrounding GMO opposition & many other environmental issues lacks a great deal when it comes to true scientific method. Some people still prefer facts to emotions.

I was talking about the glyphosphate, not GMO. I guess you didn't read very carefully.

and other environmental issues

........

Would also include Glyphosphate. Maybe you didn't read very carefully. In any event my main point was your need to insult people who don't think exactly as you do.​

 

[ChickenAl]

Quote:
Yes, this is happening. http://www.slashfood.com/2011/03/30/group-challenges-monsantos-patent-on-genetically-modified-seeds/ http://familyfarmers.org/?p=258

More interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

 

[ChickenAl]

One other article, which may be poo-pooed on, but it does make you think... http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm