Yes!.....Cheerios to go non-GMO......

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
of course they will, through competition.

if i grow 50 billion bushels of corn and sell it all at the market rate, that will drive corn cost to the floor, which doesnt bother me, i got 50,000,000 bushels to sell. i'm good, even if the per bushel profit for my crop is a penny.

other farmers however will get BONED as the bottom falls out of the market, and i guarantee nest year they wont be growing corn, they will grow turnips or beets, or carrots instead.
so next harvest comes along, and i grew 50 billion bushels of barley instead, dropping the bottom out of the barley market, so now theres a corn shortage and the price of corn skyrockets.
next harvest, everybody grorws corn because the price is high, and once again the bottom drops out of the market from another corn glut.

THAT is what the subsidy/allotment programs are designed to prevent.
until the rise of the agricultural conglomerates, it worked well, but unfortunately the Ag Conglomerates have teams of accountants and lawyers studying every angle so they can game the system and squeeze bonus profits out of the subsidies, while dodging the allotments.

when the system is working properly, subsidies guarantee a decent price for your crop, ensuring adequate production, and allotments guard against over-production, preventing gluts. "Farmers" didnt break the system, and blaming "Their crooked friends in washington" is ridiculous. the small farmer has almost no support on capitol hill, and ZERO lobbying power.

the villains are crooked politicians taking bribes from giant ag conglomerates, which will abandon agriculture in droves if the subsidies are reformed to protect the system from their abuses.

some of the studies have been continuing for decades.
GMO's are not widgets which, once designed, are finished. they are alwyas looking for a new angle, better methods, and new advantages.

then seek out Non-GMO products. it's not that hard to find. when there is a demand for it, somebody will produce it.
i actually LIKE non-GMO products. it is the one area where the little guy can turn a profit. unfortunately much of the "Non-GMO" crops are coming from CHINA now, which of course means it may be "Non-GMO" or it may not, it may be grown "Organically" or it may be full of lead and strontium.

if you think china has a good track record for truthful labeling you havent been paying attention.



?????????????????????????


GMO crops do not "induce more pesticides" they are designed to REDUCE pesticide use, not increase it.

if you mean Roundup Resistance, that also does not "Induce" more use of herbicides, it simply ALLOWS herbicides to be used, which in some cases is essential.
if your feilds are invaded by weeds, your costs for fertilizer, water and harvest go up.
using herbicides to kill unwanted weeds helps control costs, and give bigger harvest, but if you dont have a weed problem you DONT HAVE TO SPRAY.
you keep saying GMO crops NEED more pesticides and herbicides a but that is entirely false.

pesticides and herbicides arent cheap. having roundup-resistant crops does not REQUIRE the use of roundup.
if it is not needed, it is not used.
Click to expand...

You are presuming that the production of wheat and soy are run by a free market, they are not. They are heavily subsidized, beyond the fact that hugh tracts of land do not have the facilities to manage any other crop but what has been growing. You have 10,000 acres, so does each of your neighbors. You have a million dollars of equipment designed to process corn and you have a single point of delivery that is close by, that deals in corn only. Now you figure you don't like the over production of corn so you grow turnips. And then you are going to have to find an entire distribution system geard for turnips, you are going to have to change up your machinery and you will have to truck your turnips to the nearest facility that is capable of storing, transporting and selling turnips - maybe that place is 300 miles away - could be because you have corn growing in every direction for a hundred miles.

Your crop is resistent to a particular herbicide. So you don't need to spray that herbicide much (and most indusrial farmers spray on a schedule and not according to need). the next year the weeds are a little bit more resistant to that herbicide - you can't use anything but glyhposate because that is the only thing your cash crop is resistant to, so you spray more. Next year your weeds are even more resistant, so you spray more, and on it goes -

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019418644_pesticides13m.html
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
There might be a bit of iconoclast in me, but I don't think my GMO position is iconoclastic. Every major food regulatory agency has concluded that GMOs are safe, so for me to agree with them is hardly iconoclastic. On top of that, it is just common sense. DNA is DNA, whether from a fish or a tomato. Eating DNA is normal for all who want to live and not starve.

I eat fish, and all manner of vegetables, sometimes in the same meal. If you can show me how eating a Cod fillet with a salad on the side is a healthy choice, while eating a tomato that has a cod fish gene inserted is somehow harmful then you will make some headway in convincing me that GMOs are harmful.

On top of that the anti-GMO side is literally over flowing with bull shit and superstition. The Seralini study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair) is cited continually and it was shown to be totally fraudulent. Many seem to believe that Monsanto inserted a "suicide gene" into their GM seeds, and that too is total bullshit. After watching the endless argument in the "Monsanto GMed pot" thread that DNAxxx started, I have come to the conclusion that the anti-GMO side is filled with liars. I have never seen a single study that shows GMOs to be harmful. I can somewhat sympathize with the "it's just icky" position that some people have because we all have irrational thoughts sometimes, but I don't understand it.

You seem to think there is no evidence that GMO crops offer an economic advantage to farmers. How you can hold this thought in your head with the additional knowledge that 90% of US farmers use GM corn seeds is incomprehensible. On top of that, you have some farmers intentionally stealing GM seeds. When 90% of a group do something, there is no doubt that they are getting a yield on their investment. You can't just waive your hands and say they get subsidies, and the ag business gets subsidies, etc. Farmers get whatever subsidies their political friends steal for them whether they grow GM plants or heirloom plants. If heirloom plants were cheaper to bring to market 90% of farmers would use them.

Your citation of the "sugar" debate highlights the irrationality of the anti-GMO crowd. You're right, sucrose is a single molecule and has no DNA in it. I happen to think that sucrose is bad to eat because it causes obesity and diabetes but that has nothing to do with GMOs.
Click to expand...


Here is a metastudy of 19 examinations of the relative safety of GMO products

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

It is tough to study something that the company who produces it makes it all but unavailable for such research.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You are presuming that the production of wheat and soy are run by a free market, they are not. They are heavily subsidized,
Click to expand...
you are forgetting the OTHER HALF of the subsidy/allotment system.

subsidy adds $X (for corn it is currently 40 cents) per bushel to the market price, so if the market price for corn is $1.50/bushel, your buyer pays you $1500 for 1000 bushels and the feds send you a check for $400.
the other side of the coin is, you are only permitted to plant X number of acres of corn, or you dont get the subsidy. the politicians and the crooks in the AG Dept have been fucking with the allotment system, giving more and more of the allotment (quota) to huge producers, and less of the pie to the little guy.

"Organic" farmers usually operate OUTSIDE the subsidy/allotment system, and their market is quite free, while inside the subsidy/allotment system, bushels/acre is the king. thats why "90% of the corn grown" in the US is GMO. it only includes those monitored by the AG Dept for the subsidy/allotment system, where almost all the crop is produced within the agri-conglomerate system who are always looking for a new way to get more bushels per acre, since the subsidy is based on bushels harvested, while the quota/allotment is based on the acres sown. a 10% bump in bushels per acre from GMO's pesticides, and herbicides doesnt do diddly for the little guy, but for the big conglomerates it's the Golden Ticket.

canndo said:
beyond the fact that hugh tracts of land do not have the facilities to manage any other crop but what has been growing.
Click to expand...
lulz. the farms around me plant a crazy quilt of crops depending on the season, the expected market conditions and contract production.
watch one feild for a couple years and youll see sunflowers, barley, mustard, rape, onions, strawberries, tomatoes, corn, mellons, garlic, radishes, carrots, peas, beans, and even rice come and go.
thats how the independant farmer makes his dough, planting shit that is expected to have a high market price, or being contracted to produce a particular crop for a set rate, which changes from year to year and season to season.

with the notable exception of orchard and vineyard crops which take years to produce, almost every small farmer grows different stuff every year and every season.
combines can be reset for different rowcrops (wheat, barley, corn, soya, etc...) and while resetting a combine from wheat to soya costs a packet, most small operators dont do the subsidized crops, since they dont usually get an allotment, and without the subsidy they cant compete with the giants except in niche markets like "Non-GMO" or "Organic" production.

canndo said:
You have 10,000 acres, so does each of your neighbors. You have a million dollars of equipment designed to process corn and you have a single point of delivery that is close by, that deals in corn only. Now you figure you don't like the over production of corn so you grow turnips. And then you are going to have to find an entire distribution system geard for turnips, you are going to have to change up your machinery and you will have to truck your turnips to the nearest facility that is capable of storing, transporting and selling turnips - maybe that place is 300 miles away - could be because you have corn growing in every direction for a hundred miles.
Click to expand...
clearly you dont know much about farming.
crops which dont have a ready local market (co-ops, packing houses buyers for supermarkets, etc...) are usually produced under contract, and shipped by the contractee to the place they want it.

if i open a brewery and need 10,000 bushels of barley every year, i dont buy it at the local bodega, or order it from Hammacher Schlemmer, i make a contract with a farmer to grow X number of bushels of barley for me, to be delivered at Y time for Z $/bushel. if i want something specialized ("Certified Organic", Hand Harvested, an obscure cultivar, etc) i can get exactly what i want, and the farmer gets paid a premium for his work.

canndo said:
Your crop is resistent to a particular herbicide. So you don't need to spray that herbicide much (and most indusrial farmers spray on a schedule and not according to need). the next year the weeds are a little bit more resistant to that herbicide - you can't use anything but glyhposate because that is the only thing your cash crop is resistant to, so you spray more. Next year your weeds are even more resistant, so you spray more, and on it goes -

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019418644_pesticides13m.html
Click to expand...
industrial farms are run by suits, ham fisted dilettantes who think farming can be taught in a business school. as long as their servants in washington keep doling out the generous subsidies and screwing up the allotment system, they can continue to succeed.

their actions are not representative of a failing in the farming community, they are proof a failure in the government system.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
And another on the failure of the human body to metabolize BT toxins.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032407_Bt_insecticide_GMOs.html
Click to expand...


"Set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology the new study shreds the false notion that Bt is broken down by the digestive system, and instead shows that the toxin definitively persists in the bloodstream."

Your natural news article was published in 2011. Has the actual study been published? Do you know what it actually says?

It looks like another failed study. Maybe not as ham handed as the Serilini propaganda, but certainly not reliable. Total crap.

My advice to you is to stop reading "Natural News" unless you do it for the lulz.



From the government food standards lab in Australia:

"
What are the concerns about the paper?

A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety. The key limitations include insensitivity of the assay method used and unsubstantiated and invalid assumptions regarding the source of the Cry1Ab protein in the diets of test subjects. Media speculation arising from this paper has also presented conclusions about the human health relevance of this paper which are not supported by either the paper itself or the broader scientific literature. These issues are discussed in more detail below.


The assay method
The assay method (ELISA) used for Cry1Ab protein was not tested (validated) for its suitability to measure Cry1Ab in human blood. Other reports in the scientific literature have shown that the ELISA assay is not suitable for this purpose.
In mammals, the Cry1Ab protein is degraded in the stomach. If any fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were to pass through into the blood stream, they would be present at levels much lower than could be quantified by the assay method used in the study."


The assumption that GM foods are the source of the Cry1Ab protein
The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.
Several insecticidal formulations (e.g. Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins, (including Cry1Ab) and livingBtkspores that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwi-fruit, citrus, avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically-certified crops.

...

There have been claims in the media that the paper is proof GM foods are not safe for human consumption.



However, the paper does not discuss the safety implications of finding Cry1Ab in the human body and the authors make no mention of any abnormalities in either the subjects or, in the case of those who were pregnant at the time of the study, the subsequent process of birth or the health of the mothers and babies postpartum.



http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/cry1ab/Pages/default.aspx
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
All of you "organic" types better start trembling because BT toxin is cleared to be used on "organic certified" veggies...
 
tightpockt

tightpockt

Well-Known Member
This is going to sound really stupid coming from a 30 something year old man but here goes...
I saw a thing on Dr. Oz the other day ( that i don't feel like fact checking for myself because I'm high and lazy and took a Percocet and I'm feeling Noiice!) itabout how the use of pesticides and herbicides has increased from 1 million tons in 1999 to 65 million tons in 2012 and what's more alarming than the volume is the increasing variety they're spraying and how they interact with each other in the human body...
Of course they had a couple guests on who said they were sick etc etc and who knows if that's true but even still I'd rather buy things grown organically and pay a premium just for the peace of mind.
Given the CHOICE between good ol' fashioned corn and corn modified in a lab to produce its own pesticides ill take the regular stuff thank you very much. and, if a company is going to use GMOs put it on the label for me so I can make an informed choice with how I spend my money.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
"Set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology the new study shreds the false notion that Bt is broken down by the digestive system, and instead shows that the toxin definitively persists in the bloodstream."

Your natural news article was published in 2011. Has the actual study been published? Do you know what it actually says?

It looks like another failed study. Maybe not as ham handed as the Serilini propaganda, but certainly not reliable. Total crap.

My advice to you is to stop reading "Natural News" unless you do it for the lulz.
Click to expand...




desert dude said:
From the government food standards lab in Australia:

"
What are the concerns about the paper?

A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety. The key limitations include insensitivity of the assay method used and unsubstantiated and invalid assumptions regarding the source of the Cry1Ab protein in the diets of test subjects. Media speculation arising from this paper has also presented conclusions about the human health relevance of this paper which are not supported by either the paper itself or the broader scientific literature. These issues are discussed in more detail below.


The assay method
The assay method (ELISA) used for Cry1Ab protein was not tested (validated) for its suitability to measure Cry1Ab in human blood. Other reports in the scientific literature have shown that the ELISA assay is not suitable for this purpose.
In mammals, the Cry1Ab protein is degraded in the stomach. If any fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were to pass through into the blood stream, they would be present at levels much lower than could be quantified by the assay method used in the study."


The assumption that GM foods are the source of the Cry1Ab protein
The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.
Several insecticidal formulations (e.g. Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins, (including Cry1Ab) and livingBtkspores that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwi-fruit, citrus, avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically-certified crops.
Click to expand...


...

desert dude said:
There have been claims in the media that the paper is proof GM foods are not safe for human consumption.
Click to expand...




desert dude said:
However, the paper does not discuss the safety implications of finding Cry1Ab in the human body and the authors make no mention of any abnormalities in either the subjects or, in the case of those who were pregnant at the time of the study, the subsequent process of birth or the health of the mothers and babies postpartum.



http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/cry1ab/Pages/default.aspx
Click to expand...


InB4 he dem,ands a re-match...
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tightpockt said:
This is going to sound really stupid coming from a 30 something year old man but here goes...
I saw a thing on Dr. Oz the other day ( that i don't feel like fact checking for myself because I'm high and lazy and took a Percocet and I'm feeling Noiice!) itabout how the use of pesticides and herbicides has increased from 1 million tons in 1999 to 65 million tons in 2012 and what's more alarming than the volume is the increasing variety they're spraying and how they interact with each other in the human body...
Of course they had a couple guests on who said they were sick etc etc and who knows if that's true but even still I'd rather buy things grown organically and pay a premium just for the peace of mind.
Given the CHOICE between good ol' fashioned corn and corn modified in a lab to produce its own pesticides ill take the regular stuff thank you very much. and, if a company is going to use GMOs put it on the label for me so I can make an informed choice with how I spend my money.
Click to expand...
or you can simply look for the stuff that has the OTHER label, the one that is voluntary, doesnt have a government mandate demanding it, and represents a producer who is willingly offering what you want, instead of insisting on a scary warning label to confuse those other Dr Oz viewers who dont know the difference between an assertion and a fact.
 
tightpockt

tightpockt

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
or you can simply look for the stuff that has the OTHER label, the one that is voluntary, doesnt have a government mandate demanding it, and represents a producer who is willingly offering what you want, instead of insisting on a scary warning label to confuse those other Dr Oz viewers who dont know the difference between an assertion and a fact.
Click to expand...
when did it become that you have to seek out something that's good for you when its supposed to be inherently good for you anyway. You shouldn't have to go out of your way just to find good food. You shouldn't have to navigate this mine field of chemicals and hormones and antibiotics just to eat a piece of fucking chicken.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
tightpockt said:
when did it become that you have to seek out something that's good for you when its supposed to be inherently good for you anyway. You shouldn't have to go out of your way just to find good food. You shouldn't have to navigate this mine field of chemicals and hormones and antibiotics just to eat a piece of fucking chicken.
Click to expand...
you have ALWAYS had to seek out what you want.

when did it become a farmer's responsibility to provide for your dietary superstitions?

if you want a blowjob, SEEK OUT A HOOKER.

if you want a blowjob without catching the herps, SEEK OUT A CLEAN HOOKER. (and pay a premium)

if none of the hookers in your area are suitably clean, you just found an unfilled market niche.

1) Acquire Bitches
2) Start Pimping
3) Get That Cheddar
4) Keep Pimp Hand Strong
5) ????
6) Profit.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
and it I want arsinic in my Wheaties it is my right, and it should need to be labeled.
Click to expand...
easy solution:

1) acquire peach and apricot pits.
2) grind pits and boil in water for several hours.
3) remove ground up boiled pits from water
4) boil until water is almost gone.
5) pour solution over your wheaties.
6) enjoy yummy almond flavoured wheeties
7) go into the light.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Dr Kynes said:
easy solution:

1) acquire peach and apricot pits.
2) grind pits and boil in water for several hours.
3) remove ground up boiled pits from water
4) boil until water is almost gone.
5) pour solution over your wheaties.
6) enjoy yummy almond flavoured wheeties
7) go into the light.
Click to expand...
Arsenic and cyanide are distinct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top