Mark Lynas on his conversion to supporting GMOs - Oxford Lecture on Farming

70 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Not my area of expertise. No idea who this is. Just thought it was interesting.

  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    The problem with GMO's is they have become a "hot button" issue.

    I have always the potential for GMOs is tremendous. Problem is Monsanto in particular has made it such a commercial topic - it's seldom discussed rationally.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133969].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      The problem with GMO's is they have become a "hot button" issue.

      I have always the potential for GMOs is tremendous. Problem is Monsanto in particular has made it such a commercial topic - it's seldom discussed rationally.


      Monsanto: Winning the Ground War - Businessweek


      I love trotting this out, and making such people look stupid.


      The 'scoop' on Monsanto is based on fear, and products that were discontinued years ago.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135582].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

        Monsanto: Winning the Ground War - Businessweek


        I love trotting this out, and making such people look stupid.


        The 'scoop' on Monsanto is based on fear, and products that were discontinued years ago.
        U.S. farmers may stop planting GMOs after horrific crop yields
        15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto's Roundup
        I love trotting this out, and making such people look stupid
        If you mean the people who believe gmo's are harmless and will feed the world, I agree. I love making those people look stupid also.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135798].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          U.S. farmers may stop planting GMOs after horrific crop yields
          15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto's Roundup
          If you mean the people who believe gmo's are harmless and will feed the world, I agree. I love making those people look stupid also.
          Hurray!

          My buddy Thom is back!!

          EDIT: Awesome articles by the way, thanks!


          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135800].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            Hurray!

            My buddy Thom is back!!

            EDIT: Awesome articles by the way, thanks!


            Terra
            Just passing through
            They are pretty good articles.
            Here's another short but to the point one for you.
            GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

            Good talking to you again, now back to listening to Joe Bonamassa
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10135938].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Just passing through
              They are pretty good articles.
              Here's another short but to the point one for you.
              GMOs Will Not Feed the World, New Report Concludes

              Good talking to you again, now back to listening to Joe Bonamassa

              Thanks!

              I'll read it then go back to listening to the Ozark Mountain Daredevils.


              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10136005].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Lance K
          If only it was that simple. The seed companies have to be willing to offer their best genetics as a non-GMO option in order for this to gain any real traction. The trend the last few years has been to stack as many traits in their best genetics as possible and drastically limit the number of non-GMO options (usually left for older or subpar genetics).

          If you're already suffering from a couple of years of lower yields, you're not going to try to offset those losses by skimping to save a few dollars on seed when you're limiting your top end yield potential by doing so. Not if you want your farming operation to survive long term anyway.

          With the rising input costs, machinery costs, labor costs, and land costs...you have to get the output. Gross dollars per acre has always been the name of the game and even moreso now than ever. You can't maximize gross dollars per acre with 2nd rate seed.

          There has to be a major shift in philosophy amongst the seed companies if there is ever going to be enough merit in that article's claims to have an impact. And seed companies don't typically move that fast.
          Signature
          "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
          ~ Zig Ziglar
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10136610].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

            If only it was that simple. The seed companies have to be willing to offer their best genetics as a non-GMO option in order for this to gain any real traction. The trend the last few years has been to stack as many traits in their best genetics as possible and drastically limit the number of non-GMO options (usually left for older or subpar genetics).

            If you're already suffering from a couple of years of lower yields, you're not going to try to offset those losses by skimping to save a few dollars on seed when you're limiting your top end yield potential by doing so. Not if you want your farming operation to survive long term anyway.

            With the rising input costs, machinery costs, labor costs, and land costs...you have to get the output. Gross dollars per acre has always been the name of the game and even moreso now than ever. You can't maximize gross dollars per acre with 2nd rate seed.

            There has to be a major shift in philosophy amongst the seed companies if there is ever going to be enough merit in that article's claims to have an impact. And seed companies don't typically move that fast.
            Independent studies have proven the "more abundant crop yields" via Monsanto is a hoax. You actually increase yields by organic farming.

            Where are you Monsanto fans getting your information? You should check your sources a little better.........turn off the TV or something. Everything that is being jabbered about Monsanto not being a bad thing is MONSANTO propaganda, not truth. Not the least bit of it.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137168].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Lance K
              My studies are better than yours. First hand experience.

              And the increased yields aren't via Monsanto. Monsanto's Glyphosate resistant gene is being packaged together with the other traits that control pests, etc. And all of those genes are being bred into the best genetics.

              Until the seed companies have enough wide spread demand for non-GMO seed, they're not going to spend the time & money to go (what seems to them) backwards.

              Hey, even I refer to Big M as the devil. Unfortunately, for producers of certain size it's just not feasible to refuse to buy the traited seed. You're giving up too much yield. Not necessarily due to the traits, but because of the quality of the genetics.

              Having all of the big chemical companies own such a high percentage of seed companies is as big of problem as any.
              Signature
              "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
              ~ Zig Ziglar
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137330].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                You actually increase yields by organic farming.
                Source?

                Supposedly the reason organic food is more expensive is because it is more labor intensive to grow and there's more waste due to insects, etc.

                There are arguments for and against GMO seeds - and arguments on both sides have some value.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                ***
                One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137353].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  Source?

                  Supposedly the reason organic food is more expensive is because it is more labor intensive to grow and there's more waste due to insects, etc.

                  There are arguments for and against GMO seeds - and arguments on both sides have some value.
                  Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? | Worldwatch Institute
                  Switch to organic farming may boost yields and incomes - SciDev.Net
                  Supposedly the reason organic food is more expensive is because it is more labor intensive to grow and there's more waste due to insects, etc.
                  Organic food is more expensive because organic farmers have to pay to have their crops certified organic while farmers using "conventional" methods do not have to pay and in many cases are given subsidies to keep the prices down.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137460].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                My studies are better than yours. First hand experience.

                And the increased yields aren't via Monsanto. Monsanto's Glyphosate resistant gene is being packaged together with the other traits that control pests, etc. And all of those genes are being bred into the best genetics.

                Until the seed companies have enough wide spread demand for non-GMO seed, they're not going to spend the time & money to go (what seems to them) backwards.

                Hey, even I refer to Big M as the devil. Unfortunately, for producers of certain size it's just not feasible to refuse to buy the traited seed. You're giving up too much yield. Not necessarily due to the traits, but because of the quality of the genetics.

                Having all of the big chemical companies own such a high percentage of seed companies is as big of problem as any.
                I grew up farming, studied plant and soil science in college and spent the majority of my adult life working with plants in a variety of different fields from landscaping to doing volunteer work for the cooperative extension working with farmers to set up IPM programs.
                The increased yields you mention come with a very high cost and are only short term at best. Some of the side effects of planting those seeds are decreased soil viability (as in creating a dead soil that is reliant on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to grow crops) Super weeds and insects (weeds and insects that become immune to the pesticides in the plant genes and the herbicides that the crops are engineered to be immune to) and added pollution to the environment.
                One major problems with switching from growing gmo's to growing conventional crops is that it takes up to 7 years to rebuild the soil into something that can support life without the heavy injection of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The cycle of using more chemicals to grow crops is hard enough to break when going from "conventional" farming to organic. It's much harder when going from gmo's to "conventional" to organic.

                EDIT: I forgot to add that the genetics you speak of are there in non gmo seeds.
                In fact there is plenty of research out there that shows organic crops out produces gmo "drought resistant" crops during times of drought like is going on in California at the moment.Organic farming more drought resistant: Report
                Also from that article (for Kay)
                But she also said the "true price" of conventional agriculture is not reflected in the grocery store, but comes in hidden costs in the form of taxes for subsidies, environmental damage and health problems. Currently, less than 2 percent of all government funding for agriculture goes to organics, according to Kremen.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137486].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          U.S. farmers may stop planting GMOs after horrific crop yields
          15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto's Roundup
          If you mean the people who believe gmo's are harmless and will feed the world, I agree. I love making those people look stupid also.


          First off, what does Roundup have to do with GMO crops?


          Secondly, can you tell me what GMO crops Monsanto produces that you actually eat besides squash?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137501].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            First off, what does Roundup have to do with GMO crops?


            Secondly, can you tell me what GMO crops Monsanto produces that you actually eat besides squash?
            The Roundup Ready Controversy


            "Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development. "
            Signature

            "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137524].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

              The Roundup Ready Controversy


              "Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development. "
              Currently wheat is sprayed with round up just before harvest.
              From the horses mouth http://roundup.ca/_uploads/documents...ng%20Guide.pdf
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137539].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
              Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

              The Roundup Ready Controversy


              "Current Roundup Ready crops include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development. "




              Did you read the bizweek article I posted?

              Wheat was cancelled years ago.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137589].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                Did you read the bizweek article I posted?

                Wheat was cancelled years ago.
                Floyd, did you not see what I just copied and posted from Monsanto's site? They provide the seeds for farmers to grow wheat, among other things....

                Here's the link if you don't believe me. Agricultural Seeds

                I'm would imagine Monsanto keeps their website fairly current, and is far more reliable than bizweek.
                Signature
                If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137595].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                Did you read the bizweek article I posted?

                Wheat was cancelled years ago.

                Floyd, your article is from 2007.

                Per Monsanto, "Monsanto has re-invested in wheat research in the past five years. In 2009, the company purchased WestBred, a wheat seed company in the United States. Since then, the company has focused its efforts on developing new conventionally bred wheat varieties while researching potential uses of genetic modification in wheat."

                Wheat


                They may have cancelled a program or two in the past, but they admit to researching genetic modification in wheat.
                Signature

                Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137604].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                Did you read the bizweek article I posted?

                Wheat was cancelled years ago.
                Really? Then why does the data sheet I posted from the round up website still list it as one of the crops to spray round up on before harvest.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137606].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            First off, what does Roundup have to do with GMO crops?


            Secondly, can you tell me what GMO crops Monsanto produces that you actually eat besides squash?
            First: Well when one of the traits engineered into gmo crops is a resistance to round-up, I'd say almost everything. Then add to that the fact that gmo crops that are engineered to kill insects are registered as insecticides.
            Second: Corn (corn syrup high fructose corn syrup), Cotton oil, Soybeans, Sugar beets, Papaya.
            I actually try not to eat any of those things.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137530].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              First: Well when one of the traits engineered into gmo crops is a resistance to round-up, I'd say almost everything.


              You are assuming the people in question are actually using roundup......which may or may not be true.


              Oh, and the stuff they grow is for biofuels, and edible oil (their corn isn't used in HFCS IIRC). With the exception of squash, you have never directly eaten anything Monsanto makes, so I'd say you're pretty safe.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137549].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Cali16
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                Oh, and the stuff they grow is for biofuels, and edible oil (their corn isn't used in HFCS IIRC). With the exception of squash, you have never directly eaten anything Monsanto makes, so I'd say you're pretty safe.
                Floyd, this quote is taken directly from Monsanto's website (bolds are mine):

                At Monsanto, we work to bring better seeds for farmers. We do this by having a world-class breeding program that aims to keep finding the best plants adapted to local conditions. And, sometimes, we use genetic modification to bring beneficial traits to the plant, such as the ability to tolerate drought better, resist herbicide applications or ward off pests.

                Monsanto provides seeds to farmers in eight row crops: alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets and wheat.
                With the exception of cotton and alfalfa, the vast majority of processed food contains at least one of those ingredients (and often several) in some form or another, although they may be listed as ingredients most people don't realize come from them (e.g. maltodextrin and ascorbic acid are usually made from corn).

                Not to mention, the vast majority of cows raised for beef or milk are fed GMO grains including corn and soy. Many other animals raised for food are also given feed that contains GMO grains.
                Signature
                If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137575].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                  Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

                  Floyd, this quote is taken directly from Monsanto's website (bolds are mine):

                  With the exception of cotton and alfalfa, the vast majority of processed food contains at least one of those ingredients (and often several) in some form or another, although they may be listed as ingredients most people don't realize come from them (e.g. maltodextrin and ascorbic acid are usually made from corn).

                  Not to mention, the vast majority of cows raised for beef or milk are fed GMO grains including corn and soy. Many other animals raised for food are also given feed that contains GMO grains.
                  Exactly!

                  And that is why I shop in the organic, no GMO, gluten free, no preservatives, no hormones, etc. section and I still have to read every label being highly allergic to corn and allergic to the rest of the grains.

                  Corn is being called many different things these days and I have to be very, very careful! I think they started making new names for it because so many people don't want to buy it now.

                  B@stards!

                  Well, they complicate my life in trying to not only stay alive, but healthy as well, purely for profit.

                  Well, perhaps pure was a poor choice of a word. =/


                  Terra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137631].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                You are assuming the people in question are actually using roundup......which may or may not be true.


                Oh, and the stuff they grow is for biofuels, and edible oil (their corn isn't used in HFCS IIRC). With the exception of squash, you have never directly eaten anything Monsanto makes, so I'd say you're pretty safe.
                Sources, please?
                Signature

                "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137576].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
                  Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

                  Sources, please?


                  Try the bizweek article I posted earlier.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137591].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Lance K
                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                You are assuming the people in question are actually using roundup......which may or may not be true.
                That is a good point. We've been planting glyphosate resistant corn for over 5 years now and have never sprayed glyphosate on it. It's just that that gene is stacked in with the other genes that control insects. And unfortunately those genes are necessary in our area.

                That said, Thom has some very valid points. We do our best to follow all stewardship requirements regarding to refuge acres, limit herbicide/pesticide applications to what is absolutely necessary, and no-till almost all of our acres in order to combat as many of those problems as we can, as best we can.

                I'd be fine with the government doing away with subsidies all together. I'd even be in favor of them diverting the subsidies to those who move toward organic farming. Otherwise, it's too cost prohibitive to do on a large scale.

                Even then, there isn't sufficient infrastructure to handle a large scale switch to organic. And even if you invest the necessary time and resources into building that infrastructure, I would be surprised if demand held at a level that would allow producers to make sufficient returns. Organic is still somewhat of a niche. If it were to become widely adopted and more commoditized, it would be very hard for farmers to remain solvent long term without a drastic reduction in supply to drive prices up OR acceptance from the general public to pay more for their food simply because it's better for them (I don't see that one happening).

                As for the yield comparison of non-GMO to GMO, I've seen both instances. Some years the non-GMO has been just as good (and in a few cases better) than the GMO seed. But then there are other years when you get infestations and the GMO seed absolutely crushes the non-GMO seed.

                All I know is that based on first hand experience in our area, our average yields have climbed 15% to 20% over the last 13 years. And I'll be the first to admit that some of that is due to improved genetics. But it's also directly correlated to when we shifted to predominantly GMO seed. I'm not saying it's how it should be or even how we want it to be, but it's how it is. When you're crazy enough to be in a commodity business, you compete based on the factors that ensure your survival.

                I actually admire organic producers. They've decommoditized a commodity to a degree. But it's virtually impossible to get into the organic game on a large scale without a serious amount of capital and a lot of patience (both personally and from lenders/financial partners) due to the time required to transition land to meet certification requirements.
                Signature
                "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
                ~ Zig Ziglar
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137880].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author discrat
                  Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                  Even then, there isn't sufficient infrastructure to handle a large scale switch to organic. And even if you invest the necessary time and resources into building that infrastructure, I would be surprised if demand held at a level that would allow producers to make sufficient returns. Organic is still somewhat of a niche. If it were to become widely adopted and more commoditized, it would be very hard for farmers to remain solvent long term without a drastic reduction in supply to drive prices up OR acceptance from the general public to pay more for their food simply because it's better for them (I don't see that one happening).

                  As for the yield comparison of non-GMO to GMO, I've seen both instances. Some years the non-GMO has been just as good (and in a few cases better) than the GMO seed. But then there are other years when you get infestations and the GMO seed absolutely crushes the non-GMO seed.

                  All I know is that based on first hand experience in our area, our average yields have climbed 15% to 20% over the last 13 years. And I'll be the first to admit that some of that is due to improved genetics. But it's also directly correlated to when we shifted to predominantly GMO seed. I'm not saying it's how it should be or even how we want it to be, but it's how it is. When you're crazy enough to be in a commodity business, you compete based on the factors that ensure your survival.

                  .
                  It seems like all your basing your argument for GMO is the yield.

                  This argument is in essence what much of Society is pissed off about.

                  Its all about crop yield , competing with others, and making money. At least that is what it seems you are saying in your Posts.

                  At the expense of what....??

                  If some farmers can't remain 'solvent' and continue to honor the Earth and our habitat ... guess what ??

                  It might be time to think about getting in another line of work to support your family
                  Signature

                  Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137917].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Lance K
                    Originally Posted by discrat View Post

                    It seems like all your basing your argument for GMO is the yield.

                    This argument is in essence what much of Society is pissed off about.

                    Its all about crop yield , competing with others, and making money. At least that is what it seems you are saying in your Posts.

                    At the expense of what....??

                    If some farmers can't remain 'solvent' and continue to honor the Earth and our habitat ... guess what ??

                    It might be time to think about getting in another line of work to support your family

                    If much of society really is pissed, I imagine it's only until they see what effect widespread adoption of organic practices would do to food prices. Then you'll just be left with the organic purists (and I've got nothing against those folks).

                    So let those who are genuinely concerned continue to seek out the niche producers that exist today and pay them the premium they deserve for filling the relatively small demand for their niche products.

                    I get that there is a certain segment of the population who are really upset and would like to see widespread change. Beyond having many more producers with small acre plots, there's simply no way widespread adoption is viable. And frankly, there aren't that many people willing to work that hard. And the ones that are, are going to have a hard time getting ahold of suitable land. And even if they do, as more people switch to organic and supply starts to outpace demand, they lose their niche feel (and premiums) and become more of a pure commodity. And that environment of commodity competition will chew up and spit out the smallest producers first.

                    As for your other comments...

                    Isn't the point of any business to produce output, compete with others, and make money? At the expense of what??? No business is a zero sum game. There is always an expense of something. To imply that farmers don't honor the earth and habitat simply because they don't shun GMOs is simply ignorant. Maybe I misinterpreted (hopefully I did) your comment.

                    Oh and for the one's that can't remain solvent, their resources will be gobbled up by those that do and they'll keep doing what they do (but on a larger scale). It happens in every commodity business. I'm not worried about it. I've been reinvesting all profits in purchasing prime farmland for the past 13 years. If someone wants to start a large organic farm, I'd be glad to sit back and collect the rent checks.

                    Farming is definitely not just about competing and turning a profit. But that is definitely a big factor. As in any business. Perhaps I should have expanded a bit more. But I didn't want to dive too deep into the economics of it. Maybe I'll try to clarify more later (late for my son's baseball game). Simply put, my point is that it's not as simple as just having a bunch of people deciding to make the shift to organic production. Sounds great, but it's not a plausible solution.
                    Signature
                    "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
                    ~ Zig Ziglar
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137969].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                      Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                      If much of society really is pissed, I imagine it's only until they see what effect widespread adoption of organic practices would do to food prices. Then you'll just be left with the organic purists (and I've got nothing against those folks).

                      So let those who are genuinely concerned continue to seek out the niche producers that exist today and pay them the premium they deserve for filling the relatively small demand for their niche products.

                      I get that there is a certain segment of the population who are really upset and would like to see widespread change. Beyond having many more producers with small acre plots, there's simply no way widespread adoption is viable. And frankly, there aren't that many people willing to work that hard. And the ones that are, are going to have a hard time getting ahold of suitable land. And even if they do, as more people switch to organic and supply starts to outpace demand, they lose their niche feel (and premiums) and become more of a pure commodity. And that environment of commodity competition will chew up and spit out the smallest producers first.

                      As for your other comments...

                      Isn't the point of any business to produce output, compete with others, and make money? At the expense of what??? No business is a zero sum game. There is always an expense of something. To imply that farmers don't honor the earth and habitat simply because they don't shun GMOs is simply ignorant. Maybe I misinterpreted (hopefully I did) your comment.

                      Oh and for the one's that can't remain solvent, their resources will be gobbled up by those that do and they'll keep doing what they do (but on a larger scale). It happens in every commodity business. I'm not worried about it. I've been reinvesting all profits in purchasing prime farmland for the past 13 years. If someone wants to start a large organic farm, I'd be glad to sit back and collect the rent checks.

                      Farming is definitely not just about competing and turning a profit. But that is definitely a big factor. As in any business. Perhaps I should have expanded a bit more. But I didn't want to dive too deep into the economics of it. Maybe I'll try to clarify more later (late for my son's baseball game). Simply put, my point is that it's not as simple as just having a bunch of people deciding to make the shift to organic production. Sounds great, but it's not a plausible solution.
                      I'm sorry, but for a farmer to consider using anything that kills soil microbes and pollinators is not only the "ignorance" you are accusing others of - it's suicidal and insane.

                      Now that even the WHO has admitted the dangers - and there are tests for glysophate in the blood system, any farmer deciding to spray that crap may even be courting lawsuits from neighbors who find that crap in their children's or their own bloodstreams after the spray goes airborne, exposing people who prefer not to be poisoned regardless of your opinion of it.
                      Signature

                      Sal
                      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                      Beyond the Path

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138180].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Lance K
                        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                        I'm sorry, but for a farmer to consider using anything that kills soil microbes and pollinators is not only the "ignorance" you are accusing others of - it's suicidal and insane.
                        We have very high organic matter in our soil and very good pH levels. The microbes are just fine.
                        Signature
                        "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
                        ~ Zig Ziglar
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138271].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                          Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                          We have very high organic matter in our soil and very good pH levels. The microbes are just fine.
                          My point is not how much "organic material" you have in your soil. My point is that glysophate has been proven to kill soil building microbes. That should be of concern to everyone globally. No soil - no life.
                          Signature

                          Sal
                          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                          Beyond the Path

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138399].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                  That is a good point. We've been planting glyphosate resistant corn for over 5 years now and have never sprayed glyphosate on it. It's just that that gene is stacked in with the other genes that control insects. And unfortunately those genes are necessary in our area.

                  That said, Thom has some very valid points. We do our best to follow all stewardship requirements regarding to refuge acres, limit herbicide/pesticide applications to what is absolutely necessary, and no-till almost all of our acres in order to combat as many of those problems as we can, as best we can.

                  I'd be fine with the government doing away with subsidies all together. I'd even be in favor of them diverting the subsidies to those who move toward organic farming. Otherwise, it's too cost prohibitive to do on a large scale.

                  Even then, there isn't sufficient infrastructure to handle a large scale switch to organic. And even if you invest the necessary time and resources into building that infrastructure, I would be surprised if demand held at a level that would allow producers to make sufficient returns. Organic is still somewhat of a niche. If it were to become widely adopted and more commoditized, it would be very hard for farmers to remain solvent long term without a drastic reduction in supply to drive prices up OR acceptance from the general public to pay more for their food simply because it's better for them (I don't see that one happening).

                  As for the yield comparison of non-GMO to GMO, I've seen both instances. Some years the non-GMO has been just as good (and in a few cases better) than the GMO seed. But then there are other years when you get infestations and the GMO seed absolutely crushes the non-GMO seed.

                  All I know is that based on first hand experience in our area, our average yields have climbed 15% to 20% over the last 13 years. And I'll be the first to admit that some of that is due to improved genetics. But it's also directly correlated to when we shifted to predominantly GMO seed. I'm not saying it's how it should be or even how we want it to be, but it's how it is. When you're crazy enough to be in a commodity business, you compete based on the factors that ensure your survival.

                  I actually admire organic producers. They've decommoditized a commodity to a degree. But it's virtually impossible to get into the organic game on a large scale without a serious amount of capital and a lot of patience (both personally and from lenders/financial partners) due to the time required to transition land to meet certification requirements.
                  You've made some every good points Lance and outlined the problems well.
                  Organic food production is growing at what I think is in line with the demand. As the demand goes up so will the production. AS you know and as every farmer I know will tell you the bottom line is the bottom line. As long as there is a demand for gmo crops and a profit can be made by the farmer, that's what they will grow.
                  The USDA use to (and still might) listed pesticide usage buried in their yearly crop reports. The increase is staggering since gmo's have been released just in farming, it has also increased in homeowner and landscaping usage.
                  You're also very correct in that it's not an easy or cheap task to go from commercial to organic farming.
                  Just out of curiosity, do you use a mono-culture or rotational type of farming?
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138036].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    You've made some every good points Lance and outlined the problems well.
                    Organic food production is growing at what I think is in line with the demand. As the demand goes up so will the production. AS you know and as every farmer I know will tell you the bottom line is the bottom line. As long as there is a demand for gmo crops and a profit can be made by the farmer, that's what they will grow.
                    The USDA use to (and still might) listed pesticide usage buried in their yearly crop reports. The increase is staggering since gmo's have been released just in farming, it has also increased in homeowner and landscaping usage.
                    You're also very correct in that it's not an easy or cheap task to go from commercial to organic farming.
                    Just out of curiosity, do you use a mono-culture or rotational type of farming?
                    I don't really like the Safeway chain, but they are carrying a lot, a lot more Organic and non-GMO foods.
                    I like their house brand "Organics" French and Sumatran coffees.

                    Colorado has several organic grocery chains now, too.
                    Signature

                    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138169].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

                      I don't really like the Safeway chain, but they are carrying a lot, a lot more Organic and non-GMO foods.
                      I like their house brand "Organics" French and Sumatran coffees.

                      Colorado has several organic grocery chains now, too.
                      I shop mostly at Hannafords here. 3 years or so ago their organic section was about 4 shelves and a small cooler. After they remodeled the store there is now an organic/natural section clearly marked in almost every isle including frozen foods and dairy. This is a couple years old, USDA ERS - Chart: Consumer demand drives growth in the organic food sector
                      This is more recent, https://www.ota.com/what-ota-does/market-analysis
                      Major food corporations are listening Artificial colors, flavors to be nixed from General Mills cereals - StarTribune.com
                      Like I previously said the movement to organic is consumer driven. Here's another example Kraft To Remove Synthetic Colors, Artificial Preservatives From Original Mac & Cheese
                      One of the reasons they hide the knowledge of gmo's in their foods and fight labeling so strongly is because they know the more people are educated on them the less they want them and will demand full disclosure of the ingredients of the foods they are eating. . It's also why they are buying up smaller organic companies. The more consumers become aware of the damage growing gmos does to the environment and to our health, the more they demand organic or at the least "conventional" foods.
                      Even though I know growing organically is the best option for our environment and health I don't see all farmers going that route. Like Lance and I have both mention it's not an easy conversion or is it possible to achieve for many farmers because of the financial costs of switching over. What I would like to see is a move back to farms using an IPM or Integrated Pest Management approach to farming. This is a system that was developed by experts in every field related to farming from soil scientist to entomologists and farmers. Here's a short definition of IPM Technical definition of Integrated Pest Management--UC IPM
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138216].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Lance K
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    Just out of curiosity, do you use a mono-culture or rotational type of farming?
                    Rotational. Mainly a 50/50 split between corn and soybeans and rotated each year. A little bit of alfalfa. Alfalfa stand is cut for 3-4 years then put back into corn-soybean rotation and different acres put into alfalfa.

                    Also, No-till has worked really well in our area with our rotation to help control erosion and preserve organic matter levels in the soil.

                    I can't imagine farming where it's flat and holds excess water so they have to till it every year. The costs associated with the extra machinery needed and the fuel bills would be hard to get used to.
                    Signature
                    "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
                    ~ Zig Ziglar
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138248].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                      Rotational. Mainly a 50/50 split between corn and soybeans and rotated each year. A little bit of alfalfa. Alfalfa stand is cut for 3-4 years then put back into corn-soybean rotation and different acres put into alfalfa.

                      Also, No-till has worked really well in our area with our rotation to help control erosion and preserve organic matter levels in the soil.

                      I can't imagine farming where it's flat and holds excess water so they have to till it every year. The costs associated with the extra machinery needed and the fuel bills would be hard to get used to.
                      So even though you said you use gmo seeds, I don't see you as being remotely close to an actual gmo farmer.
                      I would also imagine the way you're farming helps keep your fertilizer and herbicide use down. In fact I would say you are farming in the "sweet spot" between organic and conventional farming.
                      For years my only real beef with no till was in using herbicides to kill the groundcover before planting. I know that is still done, but I also know that new methods are out that don't require the herbicides. The jury (it appears) is still out on the value of no till as it applies to carbon sequestration. https://www.soils.org/discover-soils...stration-rates
                      I've said here and elsewhere many times that I'm not opposed to the science of Genetic Engineering, but to the way it is applied by companies like Monsanto, Sygentra and Bayer(sp). There are other ways to control insects and weeds that are safe to the environment, our health, and are just as effective. For example with the bT toxin being put in the major crops a problem with corn borers being immune and destroying crops is becoming a problem in some areas. Monsantos logic is to use a stronger toxin (like the borers won't become immune to that). I can't remember his name, but a well respected Agronomist said if you want to solve the problem, rotate your crops. As you know that's one of the reasons for crop rotation besides nutrient depletion.
                      Same thing is going on with the round up ready crops. Just like with insects, if you use the same herbicide over and over to control them some will be immune or resistant and those are the ones that reproduce. OF course Monsantos answer to the "super weed" problem is to make their seeds resistant to stronger herbicides like 2-4-D and Dicamba. Remember Agent Orange that was used in Viet Nam and has been recognized as causing cancer (and other problems) was just 2-4-5-T and 2-4-D. I took a weed id and control course in college and if I learned anything it's that most of those chemicals aren't as safe as they claim them to be. That's one of the reasons IPM uses different controls for different stages of weed or insect development.
                      EDIT: (I swear I'd forget my name today if I didn't already read it on my mail). There are both low land and high land farms around here. The ones near the creeks and rivers have very fertile soils, but a whole bunch of problems with flooding and soil being to wet for to much of the growing season. But then again I've done haying in fields so steep you'd throw a bale of hay on the trailer bed and it would roll right off before the hand on the trailer could stack it. I don't need to tell you, but like my sig says growing old ain't for sissies, well neither is farming.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138320].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

                Until the seed companies have enough wide spread demand for non-GMO seed, they're not going to spend the time & money to go (what seems to them) backwards.
                Poll after poll after poll shows that the big majority of the people in the US want GMO food to be labeled so that they are able to NOT buy it. I'd say the demand is there.


                Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

                You are assuming the people in question are actually using roundup......which may or may not be true.


                Oh, and the stuff they grow is for biofuels, and edible oil (their corn isn't used in HFCS IIRC). With the exception of squash, you have never directly eaten anything Monsanto makes, so I'd say you're pretty safe.
                ...

                Secondly, can you tell me what GMO crops Monsanto produces that you actually eat besides squash?
                The list of products that contain GMO products that end up on the grocery shelves is long enough.

                Unbeknownst to the majority of consumers, in the summer of 2012 large quantities of GMO sweet corn appeared on grocery store shelves and roadside produce stands. In 2011, Monsanto announced plans to grow genetically modified sweet corn on 250,000 acres, roughly accounting for 40 percent of the sweet corn market. The sweet corn is being used for frozen and canned corn products, and it is also available fresh across the country.
                Here's a list also
                Top 10 Worst GMO Foods for Your GMO Foods List | Natural Society

                In addition, GMO products are used in animal feeds, so the meat and dairy supply being sold for public consumption are GMO fed.

                Here's the thing Lance. The majority of the people want labeling. They want to know so that they can choose what they eat. As it is now, I won't eat corn and products containing corn, soy and products containing soy, squash, canola oil and seek out organic corn and dairy products. I eat more wild game and fish than I do meat from the grocery store. We have a vegetable garden that is chemical free, so I get as much squash and other vegetables as I want in the summer.

                In spite of the people wanting labeling and wanting non-GMO foods, the government has proven that they are working for Monsanto ... not the people who elect them. They continue to pass bills that are beneficial to Monsanto and companies like Monsanto.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138692].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                  Poll after poll after poll shows that the big majority of the people in the US want GMO food to be labeled so that they are able to NOT buy it. I'd say the demand is there.




                  The list of products that contain GMO products that end up on the grocery shelves is long enough.



                  Here's a list also
                  Top 10 Worst GMO Foods for Your GMO Foods List | Natural Society

                  In addition, GMO products are used in animal feeds, so the meat and dairy supply being sold for public consumption are GMO fed.

                  Here's the thing Lance. The majority of the people want labeling. They want to know so that they can choose what they eat. As it is now, I won't eat corn and products containing corn, soy and products containing soy, squash, canola oil and seek out organic corn and dairy products. I eat more wild game and fish than I do meat from the grocery store. We have a vegetable garden that is chemical free, so I get as much squash and other vegetables as I want in the summer.

                  In spite of the people wanting labeling and wanting non-GMO foods, the government has proven that they are working for Monsanto ... not the people who elect them. They continue to pass bills that are beneficial to Monsanto and companies like Monsanto.
                  I often wonder about those polls, If they where true then why did labeling get voted down by the people at least twice.
                  For years I've been told be the pro gmo crowd "If you don't want to eat gmo's then buy organic". I do that, but would still like honest labeling. The funny thing with their statement is they are pointing people in the right direction to ending gmo's.
                  Remember the links I put in about General Mills and Kraft removing the artificial flavors and coloring from their products? That didn't come about because of polls, it came about from people not buying their products because of the artificial flavors and coloring.
                  My thinking lately is that the people who don't want to eat gmo's would be better off shifting their efforts from wanting labels to getting more people on board with not buying products with gmo's in them. Not sure if a product has gmo's in it? Then send an email or call the company and ask them. If they say yes then simply thank them and say you'll just find a similar product that doesn't.
                  When companies start loosing money because of the ingredients in their products, they'll change those ingredients.
                  Our lives and health may not matter to those corporations controlling things, but our dollars sure do.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139090].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    I often wonder about those polls, If they where true then why did labeling get voted down by the people at least twice.
                    For years I've been told be the pro gmo crowd "If you don't want to eat gmo's then buy organic". I do that, but would still like honest labeling. The funny thing with their statement is they are pointing people in the right direction to ending gmo's.
                    Remember the links I put in about General Mills and Kraft removing the artificial flavors and coloring from their products? That didn't come about because of polls, it came about from people not buying their products because of the artificial flavors and coloring.
                    My thinking lately is that the people who don't want to eat gmo's would be better off shifting their efforts from wanting labels to getting more people on board with not buying products with gmo's in them. Not sure if a product has gmo's in it? Then send an email or call the company and ask them. If they say yes then simply thank them and say you'll just find a similar product that doesn't.
                    When companies start loosing money because of the ingredients in their products, they'll change those ingredients.
                    Our lives and health may not matter to those corporations controlling things, but our dollars sure do.
                    The problem is the endless amount of money that Monsanto and the big food companies throw at the GMO labeling laws.

                    In the run up to the vote, companies like Monsanto and DuPont combined forces to raise over $16 million (£10 million) for a campaign to defeat the initiative in Colorado, while the effort promoting it collected a fraction of that amount. In Oregon, companies spent over $18 million on opposition campaigning, while backers only raised about half that figure.

                    Overall, chemical, agricultural and large food companies have spent over $100 million on anti-GMO labeling campaigns in four US states – Oregon, Colorado, California and Washington – according to the Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety.
                    In the same vein, Monsanto practically owns this government. Many of the politicians are in Monsanto's pocket. Instead of continuing to fight the GMO battles state by state, the government is working on a bill that would override state labeling laws.

                    Bill to stop GMO labeling set to move in House | AgriPulse

                    'Monsanto's Dream': Pro-GMO DARK Act Comes to Congress | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

                    Center for Food Safety | News Room | Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know

                    With at least one representative in the government, Koch and Monsanto throwing millions of dollars and legislation to deny the states the right to make labeling laws and deny the people the right to know what they're eating, it's no wonder it doesn't get more traction even with the popular support that GMO labeling has.

                    I've already voted with my pocket book and do not eat products that I would eat if they weren't GMO products, but not enough people are doing that. It takes time and research on your own without proper labeling, and when in doubt, you just buy organic.

                    Surveys show that more than 90 percent of consumers believe foods made with GMOs should be labeled. Further, 64 countries worldwide already have laws that require GMO labeling. "Supporters of this bill are trying to keep this basic information from their constituents," said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for Environmental Working Group.

                    Critics of the bill have vowed a fight and are already circulating petitions calling on lawmakers to block the legislation.

                    Also Wednesday, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on Mandatory Biotechnology Labeling Laws to discuss a proposed amendment (pdf) that would federally mandate GMO labeling, which is backed by food safety groups and anti-GMO advocates, including celebrity chef Tom Colicchio.

                    In a teleconference following the House Agriculture hearing, Just Label It chairman Gary Hirshberg said the anti-labeling push was "economic tyranny being exercised by companies that want to protect status quo."

                    "Mandatory labeling gives consumers choices." Hishberg added that the DARK Act, "is really diabolical and it’s really deceptive. It’s made to look like the sponsors support transparency but it really prevents it. This is really about selling pesticides and herbicides."
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139264].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                      The problem is the endless amount of money that Monsanto and the big food companies throw at the GMO labeling laws.



                      In the same vein, Monsanto practically owns this government. Many of the politicians are in Monsanto's pocket. Instead of continuing to fight the GMO battles state by state, the government is working on a bill that would override state labeling laws.

                      Bill to stop GMO labeling set to move in House | AgriPulse

                      'Monsanto's Dream': Pro-GMO DARK Act Comes to Congress | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

                      Center for Food Safety | News Room | Koch Industries and Monsanto Team up to End Your Right to Know

                      With at least one representative in the government, Koch and Monsanto throwing millions of dollars and legislation to deny the states the right to make labeling laws and deny the people the right to know what they're eating, it's no wonder it doesn't get more traction even with the popular support that GMO labeling has.

                      I've already voted with my pocket book and do not eat products that I would eat if they weren't GMO products, but not enough people are doing that. It takes time and research on your own without proper labeling, and when in doubt, you just buy organic.
                      The point I was trying to make is if polls tell us 90% of the people actually want labels then no amount of money thrown into a vote should matter. That's why I don't use that as an argument for labeling.
                      Don't get me wrong I still want labels because I still believe (and always will) that we have a right to know what we are putting in our bodies. My end game though is to not have a need for labeling gmo's in our foods and the best way to do that is to hit the manufacturers in their pocket books.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139396].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

            First off, what does Roundup have to do with GMO crops?


            Secondly, can you tell me what GMO crops Monsanto produces that you actually eat besides squash?
            Jeez o Petes, Floyd -- millions on millions on millions of people worldwide are refusing to eat gmo because of real independent research results. Countries are banning both GMO crops and glysophate. Why the hell would any informed person eat that crap?

            Yet - you don't even know the connection between roundup and GMOs? I suggest you do some research (indpendent, not Monsanto propaganda). You can get very detailed info on how glysophate is actually injected right into the plant genes.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138171].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Cali16
        Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

        The 'scoop' on Monsanto is based on fear, and products that were discontinued years ago.
        Glyphosate (Roundup) is being used today. It hasn't been discontinued, and it's the product that's generating a lot of concern and outright fear - and understandably so.

        The World Health Organization has publicly linked glyphosate to cancer; Monsanto, of course, wants WHO to retract their report...

        Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer | Reuters



        @ThomM - Hey!!! Good to see you Thom! Don't be a stranger!!
        Signature
        If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10136199].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Lance K
          Originally Posted by Cali16 View Post

          Glyphosate (Roundup) is being used today. It hasn't been discontinued, and it's the product that's generating a lot of concern and outright fear - and understandably so.

          The World Health Organization has publicly linked glyphosate to cancer; Monsanto, of course, wants WHO to retract their report...

          Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer | Reuters



          @ThomM - Hey!!! Good to see you Thom! Don't be a stranger!!
          Monsanto's patent ran out years ago. Generic Glyphosate chemistries are plentiful. Glyphosate may have started with Monsanto, but it is much, much bigger than that now.
          Signature
          "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
          ~ Zig Ziglar
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10136593].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    He can support it all he wants, but I want GMO food labeled as such so I can opt to have unmodified food sans Roundup. The government has now categorized Roundup as carcinogenic. Who didn't already know that? Would that stop Monsanto or the government lackies who support Monsanto? No.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10133970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      He can support it all he wants, but I want GMO food labeled as such so I can opt to have unmodified food sans Roundup. The government has now categorized Roundup as carcinogenic. Who didn't already know that? Would that stop Monsanto or the government lackies who support Monsanto? No.
      Exactly Suzanne!

      And I think the people speaking out against it have gained a lot of ground. The all natural, no GMO, no MSG, no preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, corn syrup, etc. section has tripled in size within a year in my local grocery store!

      Hurray!

      It's about supply and demand and we are demanding untainted foods and being heard! It makes it much easier for me to grocery shop with my grain and chemical allergies and all.

      The grocers are wising up and in their case, I don't even care if to them, it is all about the pocketbook. In my world, you want my money, give me what I want or I'll take it elsewhere. I'm going to spend it either way, your store or somewhere else!

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134008].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Terra -

        There are shades of grey with everything and GMO is the same. Monsanto is bad - I agree. But that isn't the end-all and be-all of GMO foods and never has been.

        The big problem is once a company like Monsanto is known for what it's been doing for money - it can kill the prospects of using GMOs to provide enough food in some parts of the world to stop starvation.

        The argument of using something that could be harmful to you 10-20 years down the line loses it's punch when you are looking at starvation next month. That's why we need to pursue SAFER and more effective GMOs that are fully tested. What we are willing to put up with - or do without - in the US may be a different priority than found in a third world country where food is scarce.

        I agree with requiring labels and it's hard to understand why labels aren't required now unless it's pure $$$ changing hands.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
        what it is instead of what you think it should be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134034].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Terra -

          There are shades of grey with everything and GMO is the same. Monsanto is bad - I agree. But that isn't the end-all and be-all of GMO foods and never has been.

          The big problem is once a company like Monsanto is known for what it's been doing for money - it can kill the prospects of using GMOs to provide enough food in some parts of the world to stop starvation.

          The argument of using something that could be harmful to you 10-20 years down the line loses it's punch when you are looking at starvation next month. That's why we need to pursue SAFER and more effective GMOs that are fully tested. What we are willing to put up with - or do without - in the US may be a different priority than found in a third world country where food is scarce.

          I agree with requiring labels and it's hard to understand why labels aren't required now unless it's pure $$$ changing hands.
          I agree Kay.

          There are always the greedy ones who ruin everything from sustainable foods to organized faith.

          It's a crying shame, but the unbridled truth. I think it's been that way since the beginning of mankind.


          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134039].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          TThe big problem is once a company like Monsanto is known for what it's been doing for money - it can kill the prospects of using GMOs to provide enough food in some parts of the world to stop starvation.
          The day Monsanto is credited with stopping starvation will be a cold day in hell. The reason GMO is not always or even normally labeled is because Monsanto sues.

          Starbucks joins Monsanto and grocers in suing to block Vermont GMO label law | Genetic Literacy Project

          What is the DARK Act?

          In February 2015, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) reintroduced HR 1599, a bill intended to strip states of their right to pass GMO labeling laws. The bill is officially called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act." But we call it the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act because it would stop GMO labeling laws in their tracks.

          https://www.organicconsumers.org/cam...ainst-monsanto
          Monsanto and Dow sue Maui County over GMO cultivation ban

          Bill to stop GMO labeling set to move in House | AgriPulse
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      He can support it all he wants, but I want GMO food labeled as such so I can opt to have unmodified food sans Roundup. The government has now categorized Roundup as carcinogenic. Who didn't already know that? Would that stop Monsanto or the government lackies who support Monsanto? No.
      Right now there's a group of several hundred (and rapidly growing) group of scientists and doctors calling for a global ban on glysophate. It kills soil microbes, it kills wildlife, it kills people, it's killing bees. Yet Monsanto is getting subsidies in the 9 and 8 figure range from the US gov - which it uses to pay for false advertising and the subsequent lawsuits.

      Ask yourself - why does the world's largest poison manufacturer have a near monopoly on food production.

      And watch it - Monsanto is acquiring Syngenta............and is going to change its name to throw off the global wide protest against the company. Kinda the same strategy a lot of major hated corps such as Blackwater (Now Xe) have done. Remember that research company a few years back that had conclusive proof that Monsanto is killing bees? You don't? Hummm..........maybe that's because as soon as that study was released, Monsanto swooped down, bought that company and silenced the report.

      Anyone who supports Monsanto at this stage of the game is completely uninformed. The only studies that have ever shown this poison as safe - are Monsanto funded studies. Every single independent study says "Holy shyte".

      Monsanto is about the largest piece of evidence on this planet that people have gone insane enough over power and money that they will allow complete and total destruction of everything for it.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10136064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lance K
    Requiring labels and more testing would do little more than drive the cost of food higher. Why not just let those who are concerned with GMOs seek out the niche producers who willingly label their non-GMO products? Or we could go back to all growing our own food I guess.
    Signature
    "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
    ~ Zig Ziglar
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10134046].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Although there is a spectrum of modifications, I want all GMO's to be labeled.

    It's sad that societies decided to go the fertilizer, poisoning, and mineral depleting route.

    One of my desk clerks used to be a nurse, a farmer, and work for NaturalGrocers.com...

    He points out that the GMO/Fertilizer route very likely caused the bee shortage and the increase
    in Autism (nope, not so much vaccination - the crops).

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137568].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Although there is a spectrum of modifications, I want all GMO's to be labeled.

      It's sad that societies decided to go the fertilizer, poisoning, and mineral depleting route.

      One of my desk clerks used to be a nurse, a farmer, and work for NaturalGrocers.com...

      He points out that the GMO/Fertilizer route very likely caused the bee shortage and the increase
      in Autism (nope, not so much vaccination - the crops).


      Dan
      Dan the thing with the bees is mostly because of Bayers neonicotinoid insecticides. The g.e. seeds (and many other vegetable seeds) are coated with the insecticide. As the seed germinates and sprouts the insecticide is absorbed into the plant basically turning the plant into a killing machine. Naturally because the insecticide is in the pollen it attacks bees just as readily as the insects it is suppose to kill. That and round-up are also mostly responsible for the Monarch Butterfly decline.
      The link to Autism is being contributed to Round-up and active CryAb effecting our gut bacteria. CryAb is the toxin gene from B. thuringiensis. That bacteria has been used by farmers and nature for years to control insect populations. But the way it works in nature is very different from the way it acts in g.e. crops. In nature when an insect eats bT the toxin only activates if the stomach pH and other factors "tell" the bT. that it is the target insect. In other words the different subspecies of bT are insect specific. The bT toxin that is spliced into the gens of corn, soy, etc. goes through a process where it is "spliced" into the dna with the addition of an activator which turns the toxin on. This is done so they know if the process worked. The problem is that now that toxin will kill any insect that eats it (including bees). Studies are being down to see how it reacts with our gut bacteria. The theory is that it causes our bacteria to mutate and switch to the always on mode. Additionally scientist are thinking that when this happens the bacteria start eating through our intestinal walls causing leaky gut syndrome which then may lead to things like Autism and Alzheimer.

      EDIT: Damn I'm forgetful today Here's the problem with the fertilizers. The primary fertilizer used is Nitrogen. It the healthy life cycle in soils nitrogen fixation is carries out by micro-organisms in the soil. This article explains it all in detail Biological Nitrogen Fixation | Learn Science at Scitable
      The chemical fertilizers used are in a form that is readily available to the plants, bypassing the natural process. In turn the organisms responsible tend to get starved out and die leaving a soil that is incapable of fixating nitrogen. This also means that there is nothing in the soil to fixate or hold the nitrogen so whatever the plant doesn't grab gets washed out of the soil and ends up in our waters. Also because of this applying a nitrogen fertilizer is a hit or miss process. Because so little is used by the plants over fertilizing is often the norm. Also because it's impossible to know how much of an application will be used by the plant or leached from the root zone nitrogen toxicity can occur at any application.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137638].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Look out the sky is falling
        Signature

        Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10137674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Conventional farmers have to fight organic gardening, Thom. After years of killing soil microbes and advantageous life forms with their pesticides and GMO's their soil and environment is ruined and they will have a long haul replenishing and, therefore, competing.
    That doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be done.

    Now that the dangers of poisoning have been admitted by mainstream health, and the extinction has been revealed mainstream - with the factor that bees are being killed at dangerous rates, we have no choice but suicide. I'm seriously hoping our species is smarter than that. Fortunately, we have scientists and doctors aligning and calling for a global ban on glysophate. People can call you and I as stupid as they want to - but these people are not of a stature to call scientists and doctors idiots. We're gaining the muscle on the side of the environment and health.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10138233].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Capri Sun is a Kraft Foods juice drink with versions that have no artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. No corn syrup. Less added sugar than other similar drinks.

    It seems like manufacturing costs would go down because they don't have to add artificial stuff.

    And the marketing plusses. The juice box says "You Asked. We Listened."

    It seems like so much can be done with little or no added costs - just changes in methodology
    to stuff your Grandparents knew about and practiced before the chemical sellers won.

    I think it's Finland where they naturally eradicated salmonella from chickens and eggs.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    That's the way I feel. As long as NON-GMO is labeled - and I especially look for the Non-GMO Verified stamp which marks a product as being investigated third party for truth in the ingredient list,etc.

    Incidentally - here's a list of reps that are ex-monsanto. Monsanto is in the Supreme court, Exec branch - we might even get an ex-monsanto pres if people aren't smart enough to avoid it. We have Monsanto heading the FDA - we have Monsanto in the EPA...........and the company is highly subsidized with YOUR tax dollars. Those little lawsuits for false advertising before labeling votes doesn't even phase them - it all comes right out of your pocket.

    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139473].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      That's why I don't sign petitions or contact my reps anymore.
      G.M. and Kraft didn't remove artificial colors and flavors from their products because of petitions or polls. They removed them because they were hurting their bottom line. Boycotts can work.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139496].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Sal will probably remember my local paper called the "Clear Creek Courant".

    Coincidentally, I read it today and noticed a little ad for the McDivitt law firm. They are taking
    on Monsanto about Round Up:

    Colorado Medical Injury Lawyers | Round Up | McDivitt Law
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10139859].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Sal will probably remember my local paper called the "Clear Creek Courant".

      Coincidentally, I read it today and noticed a little ad for the McDivitt law firm. They are taking
      on Monsanto about Round Up:

      Colorado Medical Injury Lawyers | Round Up | McDivitt Law
      Good it will give them good practice to go after Dow 's 2-4-D tolerant crops and Monsantos new Dicamba tolerant crops. Love or hate the idea of dicamba and 2,4-D tolerant crops, they are what
      Weeds will build up a tolerance to a "one trick pony" type of weed control approach as this article about Pigweed (or amaranth to those that know the nutritional value of it) mentions. Pigweed in the Cotton: A 'Superweed' Invades Georgia - Modern Farmer
      In 2004, a farmer spotted palmer amaranth, also known as pigweed, invading his cotton fields in Macon County, Georgia. Given that almost all cotton grown in the state is genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate -- the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide -- palmer amaranth's creep into Georgia cotton fields meant the weed had built up a resistance as well. And soon, palmer had spread across the state.

      On top of tillage, farmers increased the amount of herbicides used on their crops. Before palmer, herbicide costs hovered around $25 an acre. In palmer's wake, that amount increased to $100. In addition to the $15 million spent on labor to hand-weed rows of cotton, Georgia farmers spent well over $100 million fighting one weed in one crop.
      There's a couple good comments at the end of the article also.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10140344].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Lance K
        Signature
        "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
        ~ Zig Ziglar
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10155916].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          From that article.
          But since the scientific community is more or less in agreement that GMO crops are no more harmful than traditional crops, it is less clear what is the purpose of benefits of a label.
          More or less? Because scientist kind of think gmo's are no more harmful then traditional crops there's no reason for labels, got it.
          No offense to you Lance, but there's nothing but bullshit in that article.
          Former genetic engineer now speaks out against GMO risks | The Organic & Non-GMO Report
          First, as the new joint statement makes explicit, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM products. Second, scholarly studies, including Swinburne University's National Technology and Society Monitor, consistently find that although Australians have "high levels of trust in science", most remain sceptical of the benefits claimed for GM products and are concerned about the multinational industries and regulations surrounding these. Many support GM technologies in medicine but not in our food chain.

          Yet GM advocates frame their position as scientific consensus against public ignorance. Conservative columnist Nicolle Flint wrote in the Fairfax press that, "Extensive research exists proving the safety and environmental benefits of GM crops based on scientific fact, not emotion."Scientists speak out against GM foods
          Then there is this, about so called conventional farming.
          Happening Now: Dead Zone in the Gulf 2014 | Ocean Today
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156029].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Here's some more reading for you Lance. I'm guess these scientists are on the less side of those more or less in agreement that gmos are safe side.
            Former EPA Scientist Speaks Out Against GMOs | Natural Society
            Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and GMOs
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156094].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Lance K
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            No offense to you Lance, but there's nothing but bullshit in that article.
            No offense taken. I found the article to be a little light on substance too. But found a few of his comments interesting, that's all.
            Signature
            "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
            ~ Zig Ziglar
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156155].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

              No offense taken. I found the article to be a little light on substance too. But found a few of his comments interesting, that's all.
              That article has been floating around FB lately as "proof" gmos are save. He did make a few interesting comments. Some are even true like this one.
              Most people don’t have a lot of knowledge about GMOs. The average person hasn’t spent much time thinking about it.
              But the general theme of the article is false. He's implying that scientist agree there's nothing wrong with growing and eating gmo's and there's no evidence saying otherwise. Anyone who disagrees isn't informed on the subject.
              In may be interesting, but to me what's interesting is how much bullshit is in that article, how easy it is to debunk almost every sentence, yet some people will still believe it.
              Another example
              There is now near unanimity among scientists that GMOs are safe to eat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association have all said that GMOs are fine for consumption.
              FDA says there's no substantial difference. The Scientific Advice that FDA Ignored ? A Compilation
              Here's what the WHO says about gmo's WHO | Current GM foods can bring benefits but safety assessments must continue Safety Assessments must continue is different from fine for consumption.
              The AMA says they are safe but then they are already in bed with the pharmaceutical companies some of which also produce gmo seeds like Bayer.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Important to note that what Lance posted is a blog.

    I know there are pros and cons and I'm not an expert by any means,
    but I think messing with Mother Nature is always a bad idea.

    Just as a good enough example for my tastes:

    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156334].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Trying to find the links that you'll consider authoritative, here - but a lot of scientists are not saying GMOs are safe.
    This is what you get when the gov is bought by corps -- and corps own the news media. All adversary voice is suppressed - you hear that "all" or "most" scientists are on the side that is being politically endorsed for whatever reason. If you follow the money, it always leads to "consensus" of scientific opinion even when consensus actually goes to the other side of the issue.
    Here's a TED talk that really covers the issue pretty well.

    Instead of me posting links that people will claim to be garbage -google "ex-monsanto employees whistle blowing" and you'll find that a lot of people that worked on the inside either get fired when they raise issues, or quit because of the corruption. Pick out your own authoritative links from the lists.

    You can find a lot of documentaries against GMO's. The new documentary "Bought" is a very good one to watch.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156352].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lance K
      I appreciate the reading material on both sides of the argument and understand that there is bias present on both sides. The more information, the better IMO.

      EDIT: The main reason I linked to the article above is because I knew people could point me to other resources that may lead me to evaluate that piece more objectively. Like I said, the article I linked to was an interesting read, but seemed to lack substance.
      Signature
      "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
      ~ Zig Ziglar
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

        I appreciate the reading material on both sides of the argument and understand that there is bias present on both sides. The more information, the better IMO.

        EDIT: The main reason I linked to the article above is because I knew people could point me to other resources that may lead me to evaluate that piece more objectively. Like I said, the article I linked to was an interesting read, but seemed to lack substance.
        Very true of every issue I said this a thousand times but once again the problem isn't the science, but the application of the science. I have no problem with engineering, say, the gene in corn that makes it drought resistant. But keep it within the same Genus or species.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156481].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Lance K View Post

        I appreciate the reading material on both sides of the argument and understand that there is bias present on both sides. The more information, the better IMO.

        EDIT: The main reason I linked to the article above is because I knew people could point me to other resources that may lead me to evaluate that piece more objectively. Like I said, the article I linked to was an interesting read, but seemed to lack substance.
        I "get" ya. Actually, I don't get a lot of my info via links. In my "niche" I spent years building relationships with the actual scientists. If I see something that really piques my interest, I like to talk to the guys that have the real info without having to have the media in between them and myself. I've learned to understand the "money trail" very well - and that much of what I hear will be frustrating when I am talking with them "off record". It takes some real time to become trusted to not put names behind information when they can't speak publicly. So a lot of what I know I can't really reference without ruining my info line. It's very frustrating because some of what I have learned is anywhere from infuriating to absolutely frightening.

        Anyhow - that said, when I need info on agriculture or plants - Thom is my main go to guy. I remember our first head to head on Monsanto. Thom will not go as far as he has in this thread if he's not sure. He's an expert researcher in the field of soils and plants and knows what he's saying. Of course, he's not my only "go to" on the subject, but he's the only one I know in here.

        There's some really good documentaries on Youtube. I'm not sure whether you can still get free viewings of "Bought" but google it - you'll learn a LOT. Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette are also good films to watch.

        There's also a book that is good for learning the money chain in information suppression. I just moved and my books are still in boxes, but it's called "The Cancer Cure That Worked: Fifty Years of Suppression". I don't remember the publisher but I'm sure you can find it online somewhere. It documents the suppression of information from the beginning of the research until the present day burial of anything that doesn't support the status-quos. It's medical field, but you can apply the same principles and pathways to all sciences. You wouldn't believe the crap that goes on in Archaeology. It's vile.

        Anyhow - keep researching and watch out for disinformation. Frankly - we don't have much time left for people to cut through the disinformation and figure this out.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156513].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Lance K
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          There's some really good documentaries on Youtube. I'm not sure whether you can still get free viewings of "Bought" but google it - you'll learn a LOT. Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette are also good films to watch.

          There's also a book that is good for learning the money chain in information suppression. I just moved and my books are still in boxes, but it's called "The Cancer Cure That Worked: Fifty Years of Suppression". I don't remember the publisher but I'm sure you can find it online somewhere. It documents the suppression of information from the beginning of the research until the present day burial of anything that doesn't support the status-quos. It's medical field, but you can apply the same principles and pathways to all sciences. You wouldn't believe the crap that goes on in Archaeology. It's vile.
          Thanks for the recommendations, Sal. I'll do some digging.
          Signature
          "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
          ~ Zig Ziglar
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10156517].message }}

Trending Topics