Monsanto Charged with Chemical Poisoning

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

It's not about the residue left on food, it's about the DNA of the plant changing due to the chemicals absorbed. But that is also a good enough reason to be worried about contaminated ground water.

Thank youI did not know that pesticides can alter the DNA in a plant. Really as a species I am sure we can things better than this. Its a shame we always seem to put profit first before peoples health and the environment.

reply to post by purplemer


Says you. That's complete horseturds. If it wasn't for modern farming methods people would starve in larger numbers than they do now. If your a subsistence farmer and you have a drought your screwed. If a blight hits your crops your screwed. Modern farming techniques is what allowed us to grow as fast as we have a civilization. Once population densities hit a certain number you must have industrialized farming.Good or bad it just is a necessity. Organic farming is for the same people who buy the latest iphone. It makes people feel special. If you can afford it fine, but it wont work for the unwashed masses. They need cheap and plentiful. Mostly because they are poor and there's a lot of them.

reply to post by purplemer


Okay, so why does it cost more to insure an organic crop against failure than a regular crop of the same produce? Could it possibly, possibly be a fact that organic crops are more likely to fail?

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Grow everything organically and watch the world starve, not just the poor countries.

Sorry, but your source may be outdated. Here's an article from today, disputing you claims...

www.worldwatch.org...

It not just factories, the food is dna altered with roundup and 24d/agent orange compounds and must emit toxic gas or something, else why would it keep weeds out. He'd be poisoning himself, and the air, all creatures great and small, including his family, just by planting it.

reply to post by steppenwolf86

Grow everything organically and watch the world starve, not just the poor countries.

It all depends on whether or not people are willing to take matters into their own hands.

What if everyone with a yard were to use the untapped soil beneath their feet to grow a big garden every year? What if we learned home canning instead of just coupon clipping?

Where there's a will, there's a way...
Not saying this will happen, or that things will be perfect, just that a little common sense can give us a push in the right direction!

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Ericthenewbie

 

Some places have diversion programs for food banks but mostly there are regulatory/food safety issues by giving away free expired food being that someone getting sick would bring a lawsuit in most places. Also doesn't work out economically either if people start waiting for it to go bad so they can get it for free.

What are the options? Disperse food through government so everyone gets a set amount. How quickly would that turn to soylent green? Too quickly methinks...

People would be begging for Monsanto-pesticide-laced food.

edit on 24-9-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

I'm aware that some places do have agreements with shelters etc. and yes I agree that expired food is a health risk but the 40% number I mentioned earlier doesn't pertain to expired food nor bad food...it reflects perfectly edible non-expired food that simply doesn't meet the consumer's perception of "perfect". It is pure meaningless waste anyway you look at it!

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Okay, so why does it cost more to insure an organic crop against failure than a regular crop of the same produce? Could it possibly, possibly be a fact that organic crops are more likely to fail?

Darn. With all this modern technology, the US should have never lost about 80% of some crops around the US. If only we could modify these damn plants to not need water to survive...

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Okay, so why does it cost more to insure an organic crop against failure than a regular crop of the same produce? Could it possibly, possibly be a fact that organic crops are more likely to fail?

I do not know if organic crops are more likely to fail. Maybe the insurance rate is due to a lower production rate,Organic crop crops have a lower yield rate. Cereals are maybe 15% lower where as berries are only about 5% lower. Really the difference is not that great. I am sure with more practise those yields could be raised.

All this is only looking at the direct result of growing a crop. How do you cost in human health and and the disparity of biodiversity. Such things are difficult to cost. I am not sure what it is like over the pond over here in Europe farmers get paid to set aside land. We are growing more than we need. It could all be done organically instead.. Only problem with that is that it hurts the pockets of big business like Monsanto.

Almost all food labeled "organic" is grown with the use of pesticides as well.

Penn and Teller explain that "organic" food is largely a myth:

Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by purplemer

 

Says you. That's complete horseturds. If it wasn't for modern farming methods people would starve in larger numbers than they do now. If your a subsistence farmer and you have a drought your screwed. If a blight hits your crops your screwed. Modern farming techniques is what allowed us to grow as fast as we have a civilization. Once population densities hit a certain number you must have industrialized farming.Good or bad it just is a necessity. Organic farming is for the same people who buy the latest iphone. It makes people feel special. If you can afford it fine, but it wont work for the unwashed masses. They need cheap and plentiful. Mostly because they are poor and there's a lot of them.

uhmmm, neither organic nor subsistence farming precludes one from using modern irrigation techniques, so the drought argument is misplaced...as is this argument "Once population densities hit a certain number you must have industrialized farming" - false. It is maybe the "easiest" way, but it most certainly is NOT a must.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Almost all food labeled "organic" is grown with the use of pesticides as well.

Penn and Teller explain that "organic" food is largely a myth:

edit on 24-9-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

Well if Penn and Teller said it - it must be true!!!

(pesticides approved for use on "organically grown" produce are generally much less toxic to you and the environment than their conventional counterparts)

reply to post by seen2much


I like the way you think. Transhumanism is the future.

On-topic: funny thing how "organic" doesn't mean "healthy" in reality. Botulism and anthrax are both natural, but do you want foods containing either of those? You people need to realize that nature, in fact, hates us all. If we were meant to live in harmony with the natural world, it probably wouldn't be trying to kill us at all times. Face it, the basis of human society is and has always been advancement and conquering nature.

reply to post by UdonNiedtuno

(pesticides approved for use on "organically grown" produce are generally much less toxic to you and the environment than their conventional counterparts)

Actually, pesticides used in "organic" food are devised from "natural" sources rather than the "synthetic" sources that are otherwise used. That is the dividing line.

Believe it or not, more often "natural" pesticides are more toxic than the synthetic counterparts. This is because synthetic ones are designed to do some things while not doing others.

Its all explained really well in that video, which is a good place to jump off into your own research.

Originally posted by steppenwolf86
reply to post by purplemer

 

Grow everything organically and watch the world starve, not just the poor countries.

there is no other better fertilizer than chicken manure, i was raised on a chicken farm for egg production.
from the time i was born till i was 25. we also grew corn for feed for the chickens and a small heard of cattle, and human consumption.

we used the manure to fertilize the fields, and also sold to other small farms in the area.
during the spring time we would have trucks line up for about a mile down the road.

with all the chickens that are raised for food and eggs, there should be enough fertilizer to spread all over the farm land in the U.S. .

reply to post by ShadeWolf

Face it, the basis of human society is and has always been advancement and conquering nature.

That is only the case if you view a dualism between man and nature. Maybe there is no separation and many of the problems we have today are being caused by this perceived separation between man and nature..

reply to post by Variable

Says you. That's complete horseturds. If it wasn't for modern farming methods people would starve in larger numbers than they do now.

How do you know that can you supply any evidence to back that up. As I stated earlier there is a lot of land in Europe that is set aside. Farmers get paid not to grow stuff. Why because we are growing too much. So please elaborate why people would starve if we grew organically..

reply to post by purplemer


Or maybe you're too blind to realize that human advancement has continually meant raising ourselves above what is "natural" and becoming something more than any other creature on this planet ever has. Show me a hunter-gatherer population that has explored planets millions of kilometers away. You can't, because their entire focus is on survival. The goals of human society have become more and more intricate and thought-provoking since the Industrial Revolution because we (as a species) no longer have to worry about where our next meal will be coming from. This has allowed us to devote our time to the intellectual pursuits. No other species on earth has worked as hard and achieved the knowledge we have today.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


I like your post. let me add onto it:

I think there is a disconnect here. People hear the word "natural" and they think that "that is how things are supposed to be" or "its healthier because its natural" when, in reality, "natural" food has always had serious health risks to go along with it.

Not to mention the lower crop yields due to infestation.

Yes we need modern farming techniques BUT WE DONT NEED GREED and greedy companies who KNOWINGLY pollute land for the sake of profits. We know how to farm now very efficiently and can sustain the world population and all that without harmfull chemicals depleting,eroding and contaminating our farmlands.

The main threat is plain greed that drives our world and it seems a small group of people thinks its ok to contaminate a large group in the name of progress. IMO that makes the beneficial group less human and ignorant to the future impact these things will have on their own progeny.