France bans GM crops

Originally posted by Riposte

Uhm, yes?

If you don't want it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

as much as 70% of all US foods contain GMOs, percentages for processed foods are probably even higher.

so, what you're saying is in effect don't like it? don't eat!'. if there was such as thing as freedom of choice, lobbyists wouldn't need to coerce foreign nations and blocks into accepting GM crops, would they?

Originally posted by Riposte

Uhm, yes?

If you don't want it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

as much as 70% of all US foods contain GMOs, percentages for processed foods are probably even higher.

so, what you're saying is in effect don't like it? don't eat!'. if there was such as thing as freedom of choice, lobbyists wouldn't need to coerce foreign nations and blocks into accepting GM crops, would they?

So... what right does a corporation have to mess with our food supply making so that they are the sole propritors of seed? The notion is obscene.

I raise nothing but heirlooms in my garden. I don't even buy hybrids.

reply to post by grover


Now if more people actually grew there own stuff like you then they would have a right to complain about GM food, otherwise it's a lot like giving out about the president if you didnt vote!

Here's a little excerpt - it may be biased (likely), but it sounds legit - it even hints at a conspiracy or two... seems to me the FDA and Monsanto sleep in the same bed - perhaps they even spoon.

# Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a

potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% - a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US. Part of the reason may be that the policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine…. and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk - and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Michael Taylor, Esq. was the executive assistant to the director of the FDA. He drafted the Delaney Amendment that allowed for the minimizing of cancer risk and was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently again became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA. Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola. Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.

That's just one excerpt, I'm sure there's plenty more ammunition in the source doc:
www.cqs.com...

As a side note, as soon as my townhouse sells and I get myself in to a proper home with a yard, I'm growing everything myself. Aside from all the bickering going on here, think about the impact we could make if it became on honest trend.

We'd all save money for starters. When I go to the grocery store I usually end up buying prepackaged, heat and serve dinners. Now, I absolutely love cooking - and I take pride in the things I cook - give me a weber grill and a few select ingredients (and a 6 pack of beer), and I'll have you spitting on Bobby Flay's new cook book. Fact of the matter is, a few 'fresh' fruits and vegetables tally up easily to over $10 - and then I still have to get everything else... but a I can buy a frozen chicken fettuccine for $9.99.

Also, if the big "..it" hits the proverbial fan, at least I've got something eat... if I do it right.

Not to mention, if 1/4 of us had our own personal garden for our fruits and vegetables... think about the stress it would take off of the environment. I'm no tree hugger (though, as I get older I find myself being less offended by the abrasiveness of their bark)... but I don't think that everybody reducing their societal-economic footprint would be a bad thing necessarily.

reply to post by memoir


Yes this was the same source as the link I posted earlier. Apparently this isn't convincing anyone

Props to you for smelling the BS too


I too cannot wait to get back home and settled and begin my own garden. The one we have at my parents house is fantastic.

reply to post by Pro-genetic


You are still wrong GM crops harm not only the environment (as in killing both good incests and bad, but the worst ones self destruct forcing farmers to buy them again and again and again, and who does this fall hardest on? The poorest farmers in the poorest countries, thats who.

You read like a shrill for monsantos.

I know I am alittle late on this argument .... But artificial crops I have alot less problem with then our scientist creating MEAT .... Are they not doing this over there yet ?

Come on, for once that my country does something logic...I'm happy about the GM ban, even if they are not that bad for the future. But for now, it 's too early.

reply to post by Dulcimer


Dulcimer,

You equate crop yield from your neighbors organic farm with every other organic farm (and permaculture which goes beyond organic) in the world.

Once the petrochemicals run out and we have no fuel to ship food long distances, no nitrogen fertilizers for your 'conventional' crops, who do you think will be providing food?

The organic (and biodynamic and permaculture) farmers!

They will save your ass.

I applaud your way of life. That is great. I am not a farmer yet (well its in my blood, but that's another story) and do not rely on a 'eco-tourism' et all income.

That is not what I am trying to point out.

What I want you to question is your use of GMO crops. These are a very bad idea for the environment. The biocides that are created kill ALL life.

They are indiscriminatory. Beneficial insects and pests are killed at the same time.

I would appreciate you reading what I posted on your profile a few weeks ago.

I think you would really like permaculture. You save time and energy in the long run, not to mention money (which is a motivator for some).

The work that is done upfront compared to the work year round of a 'organic' or 'conventional' farmer is nowhere near the same.

In a permaculture system, a farmer sets up the farm/yard and waits for a yield. In a conventional/organic system, the farmer has to work year around watering and fertilizing.

The way you setup a permaculture system allows more freedom.

Each 'central' element of the guild has multiple beneficial plants helping that one plant survive. If for instance, you are using a fruit tree you would plant grass-suppressing bulbs, pest repellent plants, beneficial insect/bird attractors, etc etc.

The options are limitless with the kind of setup.

So instead of monocropping a field of wheat/corn, you would intercrop other species and gain a higher overall yield.

The wheat crop may not yield as much if you planted JUST wheat, but your yield will be infinitely more diverse and stable.

The chances of losing a crop will be much lower as you can use nutrient accumulators and mulch plants to build up the soil.

While you are harvesting your wheat crop, the other plants can be harvested as well (depending on what you plant).

Comfrey is a great mulch plant and you can eat it as well. Daffodil is a great grass-suppressing bulb, and carrots happen to be a pest repellent (and food stuff).

This process is called stacking. You try to fit as much species as possible for the highest possible yield.




Dulcimer, would you consider this on a small scale? You could start with 1/4 acre of your property and if you like it keep going, if not, stop. I think you'll appreciate it. Almost guaranteed.

reply to post by ImJaded


I'm sorry! I didn't realize you had already posted to that url. I came in a little late and went for the cliff notes version of the thread.

I hate to derail any thread, but ('but' as in 'not really') this thread has opened my eyes to what's really going on beyond the scenes -- more CT, less breaking news.

FDA and Monsanta - strange bed fellows.

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together.

Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen.

Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

HOW MONSANTO'S POLICIES HAVE BECOME U.S. POLICY

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put G.W. in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

source: www.annieappleseedproject.org...

It reads like that abstract 9/11 video that was floating around here not too long ago. Name after name is echoed from interested corporate parties into deciding government positions.

Just another example of our elected officials turning a buck at our expense.


I scream rubbish... as I eat my Wendy's combo meal #9... honestly... It was too cold to go to Safeway. Damn you convenience!!


edit to add: if you want to know more about monsanto's deceptions, just search them here on ATS, there's apparently tons of info... sorry for the re-info -- but that's what I do... I reinvent the wheel every day of my life.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by memoir]

How many times do I have to say this about terminator technology?

Terminator has not yet been commercialized or field-tested.

Source

Terminator Technology Still Does Not Even Exist

In response to media inquiries (following unsubstantiated allegations that sterile seed technology could be commercialized), Monsanto in the UK responded: "Research on this technology remains incomplete, as it was in 1999 and any development still does not involve us; likewise, its potential future commercialization is not part of our plans either."

Source

Terminator Technology is the colloquial name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by causing second generation seeds to be sterile. The technology was under development by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land company in the 1990s and is not yet commercially available. Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for poor
smallholder farmers, Monsanto, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology.

Source

Does anyone here actually know how long it takes to become certified organic?

How long does it take to get certified?

The British Columbia standards outline a 36-month time frame for transitional status. This time is the minimum necessary from the last input of prohibited substances or practices. If the grower can provide assurance that this time has effectively passed then the grower can enter the Certification Process as a Third Year Transitional Farmer. The BC Standards say that a grower must spend one year in a certification program prior to becoming a Certified Organic Farmer.

Source

You do know that in those years you are basically in limbo. You are nothing. What classification can your produce be? It is not organic.

In 2001 there were 89 million acres of crops in Canada. Can you imagine the loss of production in transitional phase?

Even if every farm were to become organic... tomorrow... It would take years to actually get organic product.

That means that you will be eating GM crops for at least 3 years.

Grow your own food.

reply to post by Dulcimer


You don't need the 'organic' label. Its all politics nowadays.

The word 'natural' will be put on your label if you can't afford the certification regardless of your organic processes.

"Organic" doesn't mean anything. From the Earth...Well so is everything else.

"Get a yield" is a basic permaculture ethic and you don't have to wait 3 years for a crop. You can get a crop in a few months and even a few weeks depending on what you are growing.

I am not well versed on wheat and corn so you may be right on the conventional methods of producing those foods.

Genetically modified anything in my opinion is a bad product, but that is my opinion. And you are entitled to your opinion as well.

Let me just say one thing about the organic fields: you do not have to wait any time for a field to become organic. You can grow in the meantime. You do not need to leave them fallow.

While you are waiting for your certification (which isn't really necessary in the first place) you could be growing mulch plants and nutrient accumulators (and nitrogen fixers) so when you can grow your field is in the best position for maximum yield.

OK

let's say you are an 'authorized' -Organic Farmer/producer-


What's to say that your product is bought by a third party,
and that business venture markets your 'pristine & organic' produce
in plastic coated (BPA) chemically treated cans or visually attractive
containers ??

see one of the plethora of toxic crud we are absentmindedly allowing
the mega-corporations to feed us with, so as to maximize their profits !

see: www.bodyburden.org...
which IS -> 'Human Toxome Project' ~Mapping the Pollution in People~

the environmental working group... presents a right-on 'SUMMARY'
which you will find on the right column of this one page presentation....

please, or kindly read, this synopsis...