Page 2 of 43 < 1 2 3 4 ... 42 43 >
Topic Options
#1168972 - 29/01/2013 21:25 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Vinnie]
EFujita5 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 02/02/2011
Posts: 265
Loc: Mordialloc Vic
Originally Posted By: Vinnie
Saw an interesting tv show on SBS called Food Inc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Inc



great movie/doco really makes you think, it was released a couple of years ago in america if i remember correctly.

you know i actually think more and more people are turning back to old school growing and cooking of food. half my family who live in melbourne and not in the country have vegitable/herb/fruit trees in their gardens, i even have a couple who have bee's now.

this is a massive growing trend. we now just trade food around the family on who needs what kinda thing. had some great kale and some purple dutch carrots recently and they tasted oh so much better than anything you'll find for 0.99c a bag

i know for a fact this style of living is gaining in popularity along with the free range movement.

people are picking up old style recipes for perry and wines, preserving of all sorts of stuff. people making their own salted/brine legs of ham and stuff like that

people are starting to understand apples pears whatever are not perfect just like people and each one looks different.

slowly i think this will become a social norm in Australia, hopefully retailers will catch on and provide these kind of foods for people to buy and because not everything is perfect might reduce the end price point.

also people are starting to understand again how to use leftovers to make another meal or a lunch out of it, instead of it going to waste or being forgotten about in the fridge, this will hopefully help the landfill mentioned above

another thing that is growing is not buying at safeway/coles/iga/aldi
more and more people are going to markets and bulk buying with friends to get fresher food at a better price. people are also going direct to wholesalers and buying food for a group of friends and splitting it up.

this is how it should be.

you wait until river cottage Australia begins, it will go BOOM


Edited by EFujita5 (29/01/2013 21:32)

Top
#1173807 - 20/02/2013 11:26 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: EFujita5]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Another case of the greed shown by Monsanto....

Monsanto, the court and the seeds of dissent
Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating natural product?
By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker

February 19, 2013
On Tuesday, attorneys for the largest agrochemical corporation in the world, Monsanto, will present arguments before the Supreme Court asserting the company's rights to the generations of seeds that naturally reproduce from its genetically modified strains. Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?

The journey of a 75-year-old Indiana farmer to the highest court in the country began rather uneventfully. Vernon Hugh Bowman purchased an undifferentiated mix of soybean seeds from a grain elevator, planted the seeds and then saved seed from the resulting harvest to replant another crop. Finding that Bowman's crops were largely the progeny of its genetically engineered proprietary soybean seed, Monsanto sued the farmer for patent infringement.

The case is a remarkable reflection on recent fundamental changes in farming. In the 200-plus years since the founding of this country, and for millenniums before that, seeds have been part of the public domain — available for farmers to exchange, save, modify through plant breeding and replant. Through this process, farmers developed a diverse array of plants that could thrive in various geographies, soils, climates and ecosystems. But today this history of seeds is seemingly forgotten in light of a patent system that, since the mid-1980s, has allowed corporations to own products of life.

One of Monsanto's arguments is that when farmers save seed from a crop grown from patented seed and then use that seed for another crop, they are illegally replicating, or "making," Monsanto's proprietary seeds instead of legally "using" the seeds by planting them only one time and purchasing more seeds for each subsequent planting.

This logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.

Although Monsanto and other agrochemical companies assert that they need the current patent system to invent better seeds, the counterargument is that splicing an already existing gene or other DNA into a plant and thereby transferring a new trait to that plant is not a novel invention. A soybean, for example, has more than 46,000 genes. Properties of these genes are the product of centuries of plant breeding and should not, many argue, become the product of a corporation. Instead, these genes should remain in the public domain.

The seed industry also claims that if patents are made narrower in scope, innovation, such as devising environmentally sustainable ways to farm, would be stifled. However, evidence casts doubt on the prevalent assumption that positive environmental impacts have resulted from their seed technologies.

Take the example of the genetically engineered soybean in question. Its innovative trait is that it is resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose primary ingredient is glyphosate. However, weeds are developing a rapid resistance to glyphosate.

In January, Farm Industry News reported that the area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012. These "super weeds" are gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.

In response, farmers resort to more soil-eroding tillage operations to combat the weeds, and they turn to more toxic chemicals. Based on data from the USDA, as much as 26% more pesticides per acre were used on genetically engineered crops than on conventional crops.

And what is the industry's response? Monsanto is planning to seek approval for dicamba-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. Dow AgroSciences is seeking USDA approval of soybeans and corn resistant to 2, 4-D, an active ingredient in Agent Orange. It is difficult to understand how such innovation is enhancing the environment.

Finally, the agrochemical industry claims that its seed innovation has provided farmers more choices. Yet the market concentration of 10 agrochemical companies owning about two-thirds of global commercial seed for major crops has narrowed the choice of seeds for farmers and resulted in higher seed prices. Over an 11-year period, the cost per acre of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.

Our organizations interviewed hundreds of farmers across the nation for a recent report, "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers." They explained that the high adoption rate of genetically engineered seed is largely because the companies have stopped offering conventional seed. One way to recoup the high investment that Monsanto and others say is spent on genetic engineering is to ensure that farmers have few other purchasing options.

When arguments from both sides have been presented, the Supreme Court justices will have to thoroughly consider the many complexities of patent law as it pertains to self-replicating organisms. But taking a few steps back from the microscope and the lawbooks, they may find that there is a discussion to be had about a much deeper question: the appropriate role of ownership and control over the very elements of life.

George Kimbrell is the senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety and Debbie Barker is the program director of Save Our Seeds and the international director of the Center for Food Safety.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1180578 - 05/03/2013 10:13 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
ISIS Report 13/06/12

Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn

Corporation faces criminal charges for concealing own study in which cows died after eating its genetically modified corn Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

Biotech giant Syngenta has been criminally charged with denying knowledge that its genetically modified (GM) Bt corn kills livestock during a civil court case that ended in 2007 [1].

Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn variety expresses an insecticidal Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate herbicides. EU cultivation of Bt 176 was discontinued in 2007. Similar varieties however, including Bt 11 sweet corn are currently cultivated for human and animal consumption in the EU.

The charges follow a long struggle for justice by a German farmer whose dairy cattle suffered mysterious illnesses and deaths after eating Bt 176. They were grown on his farm as part of authorised field tests during 1997 to 2002. By 2000, his cows were fed exclusively on Bt 176, and soon illnesses started to emerge. He was paid 40 000 euros by Syngenta as partial compensation for 5 dead cows, decreased milk yields, and vet costs (see [2] Cows ate GM Maize and Died, SiS 21). During a civil lawsuit brought against the company by the farmer however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was the cause, claiming no knowledge of harm. The case was dismissed and Gloeckner remained thousands of euros in debt.

Gloeckner continued to lose cows and many more had to be put down due to serious illnesses, compelling him to stop using GM feed from 2002. He approached the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta to conduct a full investigation. However, only one cow was ever analysed and the data are still unavailable to the public. Unsurprisingly, no causal relationship between the GM feed and deaths was determined; and there is still no explanation for the deaths.

But in 2009, the farmer learned of a feeding study allegedly commissioned by Syngenta in 1996 that resulted in four cows dying in two days. The trial was abruptly terminated. Now Gloeckner, along with a German group called Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and another farmer turned activist Urs Hans, have brought Syngenta to the criminal court to face charges of withholding knowledge of the US trial, which makes the company liable for the destruction of the farmer’s 65 cows. Syngenta is also charged with the deaths of cattle in the US trial and on Gloeckner’s farm, which should have been registered as “unexpected occurrences”. Most seriously, the German head of Syngenta Hans-Theo Jahmann, is charged for withholding knowledge of the US study from the judge and from Gloecker in the original civil court case.

Gloecker’s cows not alone

This is by no means the only account of mysterious deaths associated with Bt GM feed. In India where livestock are left to graze on post-harvest cotton, thousands of livestock deaths have been recorded in different villages across central India where Bt cotton is grown (see [3] Mass Deaths of Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30). Shepherds’ own observations and post-mortem analysis carried out in the laboratory revealed abnormal liver, enlarged bile ducts and black patches in the intestine. The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhoea, and sometimes passed red urine. Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected. One shepherd reported getting diarrhoea from eating the meat of an affected sheep. The vets declared that the toxicity could be due to the Bt toxin but this could not be proven as results were confounded by additional pesticides used on the fields. The shepherds were however, advised against letting the sheep graze on any more Bt cotton plants.

Philippine villagers living around Bt Maize fields have also suffered deaths and similar illnesses of fever, respiratory, intestinal and skin problem (see [4] GM ban long overdue, five deaths and dozens ill in the Philippines, SiS 29). Five mortalities were reported in 2003 and subsequently, 38 individuals had their blood analysed and all were positive for antibodies specific to Cry1Ab, suggesting an immune reaction to the toxin. As is often the case, intimidation and denial by government officials meant that there were no further investigations into the matter.

Cause of deaths unknown

There is still no explanation provided by the authorities as to the cause of death of Gloeckner’s cows. The biotech industry claims that Bt toxins are quickly digested in the stomach and are only effective in insect target species. However, a recent study has found the toxin in the blood of over 80 % of women and their unborn children tested in Canada [5]. Because naturally existing Bt toxins from the soil bacterium have been used for a long time, long-term toxicology and health risk assessments on Bt proteins in GM crops were not done. However, there are important differences between the naturally produced toxins that can be washed off the crops, as opposed to genetically modified toxins that are part and parcel of the GM crop. Independent studies have shown that basing health assessments on flawed scientific assumptions is not only arrogant, but foolish.

Scientific studies dating from the 1990s have identified Bt toxins as potent immunogens, with Cry1Ac inducing immune responses in mice similar to the cholera toxin [6]. Farm workers dealing with Bt cotton have consistently reported allergic responses requiring hospitalisation in some cases (see [7] More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30). Binding of Cry1Ac to the intestine of mice has been shown, with concomitant diarrhoea symptoms [8]. A meta-analysis of 3 month feeding studies in laboratory animals found that Bt maize led to changes in blood protein levels indicative of abnormal liver metabolism (see [9] GM Feed Toxic, Meta-Analysis Confirms, SiS 52). A recent study finds Cry1Ab toxic to human kidney cells, causing cell death at low doses (see [10] Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, SiS 52).

To conclude

Safety assessments of new GM products surely need to be tested independently, not controlled by the very industry pushing it onto the market place. Conflicts of interests are obscuring data that are crucial to our farming industry and animal welfare, as well as human health.

References

Syngenta charged with lying over cattle deaths, GM Watch, 25th May 2012 http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-...r-cattle-deaths
Ho MW and Burcher S. Cows ate GM maize and died.Science in Society2004, 21, 4-6.
Ho MW. Mass death in sheep grazing on Bt cotton.Science in Society30, 12-13, 2006
Ho MW. GM ban long overdue, dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006
Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicolology, 2011,31, 528-33
Vázquez RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazán L, De La Riva GA, López-Revilla R. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scand J Immunology 1999 49, 578-84.
Ho MW. More illnesses linked to Bt crops. Science in Society 30, 8-10, 2006
Vázquez-Padrón RI, Gonzáles-Cabrera J, García-Tovar C, Neri-Bazan L, Lopéz-Revilla R, Hernández M, Moreno-Fierro L, de la Riva GA. Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse small intestine. Biochemical Biophysical Research Communications 2010, 271, 54-8.
Sirinathsinghji E. GM feed toxic, new meta-analysis confirms.Science in Society 52, 30-32, 2011
Sirinathsinghji E. Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, Science in Society 54, 36-38, 2012
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Livestock_Deaths_from_GM_Corn.php
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1180671 - 05/03/2013 14:59 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
UNEP Dinner: Why Do We Waste So Much Food?

Sunday, 03 March 2013 00:00

FAO: 95% of food loss and waste in developing countries are at the early stages of the food supply chain.
Imagine being part of a huge party where hundreds of ministers and high-level officials dined on perfectly good food grown by Kenyan farmers, but rejected by UK supermarkets due to their external imperfect shape?

At the headquarters of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi, this unusual party was held to highlight a major campaign to cut massive levels of global food loss and waste which happens across the globe and not just in Nairobi.

The zero-waste reception was hosted at the first UNEP Governing Council meeting in Nairobi during February. It focused on the new “Think.Eat.Save. Reduce Your Foodprint” initiative launched in January by UNEP, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and partners such as Feeding the 5,000 and Messe Dusseldorf.

This was essentially to encourage consumers and large super markets to take quick measures to cut the 1.3 billion tonnes of food lost or wasted each year.
“No economic, environmental or ethical argument can be made to justify the extent of food waste and loss currently happening in the world, and at UNEP we practice what we preach,” said UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. “With this dinner we are demonstrating to retailers, consumers and policymakers who can push for change that the astonishing amount of food we throw away is not just edible and nutritious, but also delicious.”

Tristram Stuart, the founder of Feeding the 5000, a key partner organization has organized such dinners for years. Talking to Stuart he said, “If you can’t measure your food loss, you cannot manage it.” He visited producers across Kenya to source around 1,600 kilograms of unwanted fruits and vegetables for the meal which was whipped up into a delicious repast for ministers and delegates who all enjoyed it.
- Eating and Drinking in Moderation.

- Towards a Sustainable World: An Ethical Perspective Concerning the Environment.

- Millions of Afghans Face Starvation.

- Hunger, Fear Trap Somali Refugees in Kenya.

The food had been grown in Kenya, for the export market, only to be rejected, since it did not meet the tough standards over appearance, or orders were changed after the vegetables had been picked and packed for export. Some of this rejected production is sold at distress prices on the local market or donated. But since the quantities are so huge, local markets cannot sell it all and a lot of it is either left to rot, or fed to cattle. The poor Kenyan farmer is unable to bear the loss, with no proper returns and finds much of his produce wasted.

“It’s a scandal that so much food is wasted in a country with millions of hungry people; we found one grower supplying a UK supermarket who is forced to waste up to 40 tonnes of vegetables every week, which is 40 per cent of what he grows,” said Stuart. “The waste of perfectly edible ‘ugly’ vegetables is endemic in our food production systems and symbolizes our negligence.”

“But this dinner is also a huge opportunity to persuade supermarkets to change their standards, and by developing processing and other ways of marketing this produce, we can help to increase on-farm incomes and food availability where it is needed most,” he added. “This dinner, and the many Feeding the 5000 events we have run, aims to change attitudes and highlight best practices, by showing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this food we so casually discard.”

While UK supermarkets are in the frame here in Kenya, Stuart said that similar practises are happening in respect to supermarkets which are opening doors in many parts of the developed world, and increasingly in parts of the developing world like in India.

A chef from Nairobi’s prestigious Windsor Hotel, utilized the collected food and cooked a five-course meal including gourmet delights as grilled Sweet Corn Tamales, yellow lentil Dal with tamarind and mangomisu and a dessert which was a Tiramisu with a tropical twist. Cournede and his team, also prepared mango chutney and candied fruit peels, which showed ways in which large quantities of fruit can be preserved while in season.

No food was to be wasted and so, guests were requested to doggy bag leftovers. Large quantities of fruits and vegetables were donated to MCEDO, a community-based organization that runs a school which offers a free meal for 580 children in Nairobi’s Mathare informal settlement.

“I was sceptical of how healthy it was to eat it at first,” said Ashraf Amin a journalist from Egypt, “ It tasted good and then I felt sorry for the farmers who were not able to get their money for the work they put in. Ironically I thought of GM and maybe the western world is pushing farmers to bring food which looks as perfect as possible and this will impact the environment and our health negatively,” he explained.

The focus of the campaign is food wasted by consumers, retailers and the hospitality industry. FAO states that worldwide, at least one-third of all food produced, worth around US$1 trillion, gets wasted in food production and consumption systems. Food loss occurs mostly at the production stages which is the harvesting, processing and distribution, while food waste takes place by the retailer and finally the consumer who over buys and then throws it out.

According to FAO roughly 95 per cent of food loss and waste in developing countries are at the early stages of the food supply chain. The reasons being financial, managerial and technical difficulties in harvesting techniques; storage and cooling facilities in the warmer climatic conditions were it is grown. Poor infrastructure, packaging and marketing systems also play an adverse role.



Per-capita waste by consumers is between 95 and 115 kg a year in Europe and North America/Oceania, while consumers in sub-Saharan Africa, south and south-eastern Asia each throw away only 6 to 11 kg a year.
Interestingly, it is the developed world at the end of the chain where food waste is much larger. In the developed world, large quantities of food are wasted due to inefficient practices, quality standards that over-emphasis on appearance, confusion over date labels in supermarkets. Consumers too throw away edible food, due to over-buying, poor storage and cooking large meals with the leftovers being binned.

Per-capita waste by consumers is between 95 and 115 kg a year in Europe and North America/Oceania, while consumers in sub-Saharan Africa, south and south-eastern Asia each throw away only 6 to 11 kg a year.

“Together, we can reverse this unacceptable trend and improve lives. In industrialized regions, almost half of the total food squandered, around 300 million tonnes annually, occurs because producers, retailers and consumers discard food that is still fit for consumption,” said José Graziano da Silva, FAO Director-General. “This is more than the total net food production of Sub-Saharan Africa, and would be sufficient to feed the estimated 870 million people hungry in the world.”

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/22/americans-are-eating-fewer-calories-so-why-are-we-still-obese/
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181088 - 06/03/2013 15:36 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells

Cry1Ab biopesticide kills human cells at low doses as does Roundup herbicide Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website

A new study shows that low doses of Bt biopesticide CryA1b as well as the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, kill human kidney cells. The Bt biopesticide conferring insect resistance and the glyphosate tolerance trait tied to the use of glyphosate herbicides account for almost all the GM crops grown worldwide. Bt crops already constitute 39 % of globally cultivated genetically modified (GM) crops, yet this is the first study that provides evidence on the toxicity of Bt protein in human cells.

This work comes at a time when the French environment and agricultural ministers are seeking an EU-wide ban of Monsanto’s MON810 Bt corn variety that is already outlawed in Hungary, Austria, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg. The EU commission approved this crop in 2009, concluding that it “is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health”. In response to their publication the research team raised questions about the safety assessment procedure stating that their findings were a “surprising outcome and this risk was somehow overlooked” in past assessments of such crops. [1].

The research team led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, France, is already well-known for their investigations on the endocrine disrupting effects of glyphosate herbicides (see [2] Glyphosate Kills Rat Testis Cells, SiS 54).The researchers tested the effects of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins as well as their combined effects with the herbicide Roundup on the human kidney cell line HEK293 [3]. Humans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals in a day, and their combined effects need to be understood. This is particularly important when considering the new generation of ‘stacked’ genetically modified (GM) crops now on the market, which carry multiple resistance genes for Bt toxins and glyphosate tolerance together.

Experiments were performed to assess both cell death and cell membrane integrity, as the pesticidal activity of Bt toxins results from creating pores in the membrane of cells in the insect gut. Cell death was measured using three parameters: 1) mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase enzyme activity as a general cell death marker, 2) activity of the membrane-bound enzyme adenylate kinase (AK) to assess membrane integrity as a marker of necrotic cell death and 3) caspase 3/7 activity, as a marker of apoptosis (programmed cell death). They found that Cry1Ab caused cell death at concentrations of 100 parts per million (ppm), according to mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity. The membrane-bound enzyme adenylate kinase (AK) goes up in activity when the membrane disintegrates and releases the enzyme into the culture medium. Cry1Ab at 100 ppm induced a 2-fold increase in AK activity. No effects were seen with Cry1Ac.

No increase in caspase 3/7 activity was observed with either Cry1Ab or Cry1Ac, suggesting that necrosis as opposed to apoptosis is the mechanism whereby Cry1Ab kills the cells.

Séralini’s team also assessed the effects of Roundup alone on the human kidney cells. Glyphosate at 57.2ppm (the LC50) that killed half of the cell population - 200 times below agricultural use - caused a 15-fold increase in AK activity and 6.7-fold increase in caspase 3/7 activity.

Interestingly, when Roundup was tested in combination with the Bt toxin, there was only one statistically significant effect: the increase in caspase 3/7 activity induced by 57.2 ppm glyphosate was halved in the presence of 10ppm of both Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac. There was also a non-significant trend of reduced AK leakage. The authors speculated that Bt proteins may affect the bioavailability of Roundup, thus delaying its apoptotic effects. The combined effects were not investigated in terms of glyphosate’s other known interactions with the cellular biochemistry such as endocrine disruptions. Further studies are needed to understand the combined effects of stacked herbicides and pesticides on the human body.

This study indicates that Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, and may indeed be toxic. As Bt toxins are produced by bacterial species existing naturally in the wild, and are used for organic agriculture, inadequate safety assessments were involved in the approval of Bt crops. Bacterial spores used in organic spraying could be washed away, but the Bt proteins are part and parcel of the GM crops. Furthermore, the Bt proteins in GM crops have been modified from those naturally produced, and the effects of these modification have not been addressed. Bt crops have previously been shown to induce hepatorenal abnormalities in rat feeding studies [4] as well as immune responses that may be responsible for allergies observed in farmers and factory workers handling Bt crops, affecting the eyes, skin and the respiratory tract (see [5] (More illnesses linked to Bt crops,SiS30). Reduced fertility in mice fed Bt maize has also been reported(see [6]GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice,SiS41). These studies, along with the observation that Bt protein is present in the blood of pregnant women and their babies makes it an urgent matter for the health impacts of Bt proteins in GM crops to be thoroughly investigated along with the known effects on the environment and non-target species (see [7] Bt Crops Failures & Hazards, SiS 53).

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_Toxin_Kills_Human_Kidney_Cells.php
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181096 - 06/03/2013 16:14 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
Glyphosate is being named as the culprit in a number of areas. I seem to remember it being linked to the disappearance of bees in north america too. And frogs?

Top
#1181345 - 07/03/2013 10:45 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: ant]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Funny thing is since the introduction of GM crops glyphosate use skyrocketed...
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181494 - 07/03/2013 16:13 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
Didn't they develop some of those crops to be glyphosate-resistant, so the herbicide could be easily used on them? I think when that was revealed, many people feared the worst.

Top
#1181699 - 07/03/2013 22:50 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
tweedledee Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 06/02/2013
Posts: 1
Glyphosate usage goes up and down from year to year. Glyphosate has not increase due to GM but more to the reason that there is more farmland going in.

Good example will be this year. Since cereal prices are quite high most overseas countries will increase there land plantings.

Top
#1181865 - 08/03/2013 12:56 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
There is actually quite a deep fear within the farming profession that we may lose the usefulness of glyphosate.

And that is due to the fact that it is such a useful chemical with such a wide ranging action on whole range of plants and weeds as well as being very benign compared to some other chemicals in the farmer's weed controlling arsenal of chemicals.
Glyphosate is being so widely used, often rather indiscriminately and continuously that a whole range of weeds are developing resistance to glyphosate.
If the world's farmers lose the use of glyphosate then in many areas the control of weeds in say the present stubble retention, single cultivating pass sowing systems which conserve soil and fertility will be severely compromised as well as crop yields and qualities being reduced due to in crop weed pressures.

So everywhere the advice is " if you are on a good thing ie Glyphosate, change it."

Constantly changing the chemicals used for weed control in crops is now the recommended means of preserving the ability of so many farm chemicals to do their job of killing weeds

The anti farm chemical mob just haven't a bloody clue as to what it was like for the pre chemical farming before weed controlling chemicals, the 2.4 D's were first introduced down here in our west Vic farming areas in 1948.

Rather than rewrite I have just pasted my comments from page 7 of Climate Science thread to here

Quote:

On farming practices if that concerns you, when i was a boy of ten six years old, I sat for an entire sunday morning [1944 drought ] in stinking 38 to 40 degree heat and watched to see if i could see the house fence about 20 metres away from the house through the howling dust storm.
I have seen my mother trying to cook a meal with 3 mms of dust covering everything in the kitchen and all food was immediately placed under a cloth cover to keep the dust out.
And that wasn't just once but a number of times.
There were a number of reasons for these great 1940's dust storms

First there was a series of quite severe droughts . Not as bad as the last few years of the 1990's droughts down here but when you had teams of horses to feed then any shortage of feed was a bad situation.

The there were the rabbits in numbers beyond belief that ate any living plant and even when digging their burrows would strip the bark off the roots of the trees to get the moisture and thereby killed the trees.
So there was no cover on the ground to stop erosion.

And the horse teams were almost the only form of power for most farmers until tractors in large numbers came in after WW2

A team of ten horses abreast, each horse with four feet of about 250 mms diameter and about 12 metres wide overall, drawing a cultivator of say 3 metres wide had about 3 horses and their huge hooves smashing the hell out of the soil structure and turning it into dust where it had been cultivated during the previous pass or round a half hour ago.
Another 4 or so horses smashing the soil structure to dust with their huge hooves directly in front of the cultivator and another 3 horses doing the same to the soil with their hooves where you will do the next pass with the cultivator.
And with no chemicals for any weed control the farmers did that every 3 weeks or so for perhaps six months to keep the weeds down until they sowed the crop.
The soil was like talcum power and blew in only steady winds let alone in storm winds and so we had the great dust storms.
[ I saw a number of places in those pre chemical, horse team days where two or three fences had been erected one on top of the other as drift covered the previous fence. Ask any very old Mallee farmer what it was like back then compared to today.]

Today almost all cropping farmers just do at most two passes and often only one across their paddocks and that is when it is being sown. the stubble from previous crops is kept and the newest machinery just cuts and sows right down through that old stubble, something that was impossible 20 years ago.
There is NO erosion in modern farming when it is properly done.

Weeds are kept under control using a wide variety of chemicals
All of this is what keeps your food so cheap and at the same time is actually improving soil fertility by retaining the old crop residues and preventing erosion.


Without chemicals such as glyphosate we simply would not be able to grow enough food to feed the world's present population and in a lot of cases food would no longer be affordable for the poor.

If you want cheap food to continue to appear in the super markets then instead of attacking farmers at every turn, the radical greens and enviros who have such a narrow utterly selfish totally impractical no experience, inner city based perspective of reality of food production should be supporting agriculture in every possible way and allowing farmers to do it their way instead of some fanciful and totally impractical personal belief, city based theoretical farming practices being forcefully implemented onto the farming community.

Farmers won't bother trying to farm if this trend continues which with an average age of 60 years around here is already happening.

The alternative is for global food shortages and then the scape goats will be sought and it won't be pleasant for those who have tried to destroy farming and farmers and their ability to produce enough food to ensure that starvation and hunger no longer stalks mankind's masses..

Many of you mean very well for farmers but despite that, this is what you, the consumers, supermarkets, politicians, bureaucrats, greens and etc have done to Australian farmers while most of you but not all of you, enjoy the Good Life.

To give some idea on the extreme pressures that farmers are operating under price wise while a hell of a lot of the rest of Australia just grab their nice big wages and salaries without any personal risk or responsibility and which is why the young guys are no longer interested in farming and the stress it involves, here is a copy of a letter of mine printed with a few deletions, in the local Mail Times paper this last monday, prior to our big Machinery Field days this last week.

Quote:
Sir
How often do we hear the media yet again spouting of about so called "record" grain prices?
How often when they hear this do the farmers just curl their lips and snarl quietly to themselves and one another along with some very choice invectives on the ancestry of the media and the academic "experts" with a very descriptive, "what utter $&%@"?

With the Wimmera Machinery field days upon us lets look at a few present day prices for say Wheat compared to the Wheat prices of past eras.

To set the scene, Australia's current National Minimum Wage as set by the Fair Work Commission is $606 / week
The Australian full time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings in November 2012 was around $1,400 / week, say about $73,000 / year of which tax takes a very large lump out of.

In 1932 in the depths of Australia's Great Depression, the minimum wage as set by the various then state arbitration commissions was about 3 pounds a week although a large percentage of the those still working during the years of the Great Depression didn't get this minimum wage.
In 1932 Wheat prices dropped to one shilling and sixpence a bushell, equivalent to two pounds sixteen shillings a tonne or just a bit below the minimum wage.
So even under the extreme financial stress of those times wheat prices per tonne, still remained about the same as the weekly wage.

In 1948 following the devastation of WW2 there was some starvation in Europe as world food stocks were so depleted and the production of food in Europe was still to get underway so as a boy of ten years old I can remember my father getting 25 pounds / tonne for his wheat and that was in his pocket after freight and all costs were deducted.
The minimum wage in 1948 was about seven pounds to seven pounds ten shillings a week.
Most workers took home probably nine pounds a week or more.
Therefore, one tonne of wheat in 1948 was worth over two week's wages.
Those late 1940 's and early 1950's really were the glory days for agriculture in Australia and a period where Australian agriculture had the money and resources to go from a near peasant animal dependent [ horses ] farming system to a modern advanced machinery, herbicide and fertilizer based farming technology.

In 1968, the year my wife and I bought our farm from my father, gift duty killed any gifted handing over of the farm to the off spring by the parents in those days, was also the year where there was a huge apparent excess and build up of wheat stocks in the world so Wheat Delivery Quota's were brought in allowing a grain grower to only deliver a percentage of the average amount of his delivered wheat from a period of years past.

What you did with any other wheat that you had produced over your delivery quota was your problem and as there was only one legal delivery point, the Grain Elevator Board, the sole delivery agent for the Australian Wheat Board, there were huge effects on farmers and the grain industry arising from this wheat quota delivery impost.
Quota wheat was paid for by the AWB at an end price of $62 /tonne.
Non quota wheat generally went for about $40 to $45 /tonne in the over border trade which was deemed legal by the High Court under the constitution's Freedom of Interstate Trade .

A tradesman's wages in 1968 was about $55 / week.
So even during what was a very bad period for wheat prices, quota wheat per tonne, in the late 1960's was still selling for more than a tradesman's weekly wage.

In October 1972, unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Russian Soviets after a series of very bad harvests which were carefully hidden from the rest of the world, had literally run out of grain so they embarked on a carefully planned buy up of some 6 million tonnes of still cheap wheat across the world, most buying of which was done over a period of about 5 days.
It is known as the Great Grain Robbery.
Wheat went from about $65 / tonne on the friday night of the GGR to about $150 / tonne in the following mid week and stayed there for the next couple of years. It was another period of great prosperity for the grains industry in Australia

Today wheat is priced both here in Australia and currently on the Chicago market at around the $280/ tonne at port so freight and etc of some $50 / tonne have to be deducted from this to arrive at the price the farmer gets, a price of about $230 / tonne for his year's work and risk and thats if the farmer is lucky.

So to ask a question often asked by farmers. If the price of wheat had kept up with Australia's long term inflation figure what would the true price of wheat per tonne today?

Well the Reserve Bank has a very interesting calculator where you can work that out for yourself which can be found by googling for; "RBA Inflation Calculator"
So if I enter those very low prices of the Wheat Quota years of the late 1960's at the very low non quota wheat prices of say $45 / tonne in 1968 then the RBA inflation calculator gives a price for the same wheat today, after inflation is taken into account, of $496 / tonne.
Of course if we used the really good grain prices of 1973 of $150 / tonne then today that same wheat would be worth $1263 / tonne.

For the people of Horsham and the business houses of the western Victoria, can you even imagine what it would mean for your business if the grain cockies got over a thousand dollars a tonne for their grain ?

And do you now realise the immense damage being done to rural Australia and it's citizens and businesses with the supermarkets ever greater demands that others must accept ever lower prices while they of course just keep on increasing profits.

The Roman's had a saying; Destroy your peasants and you destroy civilisation.

Is that what Australia really wants as it sits idly by while it's rural food producers are destroyed due to sheer complacency and almost total ignorance on where Australia's food comes from and where it's wealth is created?


The world could afford to pay those high prices of yesteryear and now they claim they can't.

But they will when the food is no longer there as the world's farmers move on and out and they will be pleased to get any food at any price as has happened repeatedly again and again throughout the history of mankind.



Edited by ROM (08/03/2013 13:03)

Top
#1181873 - 08/03/2013 13:29 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: tweedledee]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Actually the use of Glyphosate has increased markedly since the introduction of GM crops, (not reduced as they had claimed it would..) as with nature the crops develop a resistance to the glyposate and then the farmers have to use more of it to spray the crops.
There are now many area's of the US that have been declared infested with "super weeds" due to the overuse of Glyphosate since the introduction of GM crops.

But the big bio-tech companies are countering that, and introducing GM crops that need to be sprayed with even more deadly chemicals like 2-4-D.
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181884 - 08/03/2013 13:57 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
You are totally surrounded by chemicals that are much more deadly than any farm chemicals YS.
You wear those chemicals in all the materials that have any dyes or paint on them .
You no doubt spray occasionally for flies.
You grab that bowser handle and get a bit of fuel over you and those hydrocarbons are pretty deadly in a lot of ways .
You no doubt drive happily through heavy traffic breathing in and swallowing a whole cocktail of some very nasty chemicals and that probably eery day if you are in the city.
Those plastics that are EVERY part of your life are made up of some pretty deadly chemicals.
Those pills and etc you pop on occasions are more deadly in quantity than those farm chemicals .
Those nuts like almonds are extremely high in a arsenic and if they had to go through the tests that farm chemicals have to go through for toxicity, nuts and many vegies of just about every type would be totally banned .
And so it goes on.
Anything at all that you eat wear, drink and take is deadly if you swallow or have too much of them.

So my suggestion is get real, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you would like a good part of the world to go hungry and even starve because people like you are intent on forcing a very personal belief and an unproven except in your own mind, anti chemical and highly discriminatory ideology onto farming and eventually as with all highly dictatorial movements, everybody else.

If you wish to believe what you do that is your right.
If you wish to live a life that fits your ideology, providing it breaks no laws, that is your right.
If you wish to force your personal and highly discriminatory ideology onto a particular part of society such as farmers or onto everybody else then we will fight you and your ideological kin.

If you succeed in your aims and the world starves then god help you!

Top
#1181919 - 08/03/2013 15:16 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: ROM]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Quote:
Without chemicals such as glyphosate we simply would not be able to grow enough food to feed the world's present population


That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements that i have ever heard! how do you think organic farmers grow food? organic farmers work with nature rather than against it, they do not have to rely on the multitude of noxious kill everything that moves chemicals that conventional farmers *choose* to use, there have been many a convectional farmer that has made the transition from conventional chemical crops over to organic farming practices with the minimum of fuss and they reap the benefits by not having to use costly noxious chemicals, yes it may cost them more because they have to employ people to hand weed or the like, so they are creating jobs and employment opportunities for more people and the food they grow can be sold at a higher premium.

It is simply easier for most people not to look outside the box that they live in as after all the majority of the population now days has no idea where their food comes from or simply do not care because they are too “time poor” if the majority of people really knew what chemicals that went onto/into their food and how it was processed things would rapidly change.


Quote:
You are totally surrounded by chemicals that are much more deadly than any farm chemicals YS.

So why introduce more and more? and why introduce more deadly chemicals including ones that have been banned for years?

Quote:
You wear those chemicals in all the materials that have any dyes or paint on them ..

You wear paint?

Quote:
You no doubt spray occasionally for flies..

No, that’s what spiders are employed for, also the “old fashioned” sticky traps work a treat, ohh and the old fly swap you never miss with...and that is the main reason why you have fly screen on windows and doors for.

Quote:
You grab that bowser handle and get a bit of fuel over you and those hydrocarbons are pretty deadly in a lot of ways ..

Well not really, i use that car the least amount of time that i can and, my vehicle is on gas so 95% of the time i fill it with gas rather than petrol.So to put it in perspective i have filled the car with petrol Twice since October last year....

Quote:
You no doubt drive happily through heavy traffic breathing in and swallowing a whole cocktail of some very nasty chemicals and that probably eery day if you are in the city..

No i don’t, i would not live in the city if you paid me! i prefer the clean country air where i am thankyou....

Quote:
Those plastics that are EVERY part of your life are made up of some pretty deadly chemicals..

Didn’t you say in one of your other replies that plastics were completely safe and not “deadly” at all.............

Quote:
Those pills and etc you pop on occasions are more deadly in quantity than those farm chemicals ..

And what pills would they be? If these farm chemicals are so safe like you claim they are why do so many farmers end up with cancers? being originally from a framing area a lot of the farmers that i know/knew are either now dead (and not from old age) or have had cancer in some shape or form...

Quote:
Those nuts like almonds are extremely high in a arsenic and if they had to go through the tests that farm chemicals have to go through for toxicity, nuts and many vegies of just about every type would be totally banned ..

But yet the myriad of chemicals that are added to processed foods are completely fine and safe.......

Quote:
And so it goes on.
Anything at all that you eat wear, drink and take is deadly if you swallow or have too much of them.

Not if it is organically grown and is not processed full of chemicals...



Quote:
If you wish to believe what you do that is your right.
If you wish to live a life that fits your ideology, providing it breaks no laws, that is your right.
If you wish to force your personal and highly discriminatory ideology onto a particular part of society such as farmers or onto everybody else then we will fight you and your ideological kin.

If you succeed in your aims and the world starves then god help you!

I would rather live a life that is full and rich rather than a one where nobody wants to change anything and they just want a “pill to cure all ills” because they believe everything that they are told and just follow blindly like sheep.

If people took control of their lives and grew their own food, “then there would be no need for such terms as food security” but i forgot everyone is so time poor that they have no time to spend a few hours a week in the vegge plot (but hey we can sit in front of the TV for hours on end..) then they would not be at the mercy of multi national companies that supply their every whim or desire.

Quote:
So my suggestion is get real, take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you would like a good part of the world to go hungry and even starve because people like you are intent on forcing a very personal belief and an unproven except in your own mind, anti chemical and highly discriminatory ideology onto farming and eventually as with all highly dictatorial movements, everybody else.

And as you are with your “Chemicals are the saviour of all mankind and we would not survive with out them”...again that is YOUR opinion and you are expressing YOUR opinion, so you have YOUR opinion and i have mine, i am not forcing my views onto anybody, merely expressing them, you on the other hand are trying to “force'” me not to express my opinion because it may upset someone or some people may actually wake up and see what is really going into/onto the food they eat..

look at the safety gear this poor guy has to wear so he does not come into contact with as you say “seemingly harmless chemicals” that are being prepared to be sprayed on the food you eat...


_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181935 - 08/03/2013 16:17 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ant Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2002
Posts: 9063
Loc: Overlooking ACT at 848m
If food growers are having to resort to ever more radical measures to grow "enough" food to feed the world, then that's just another indicator that overpopulation is upon us, both in Australia and globally.

Top
#1181948 - 08/03/2013 16:48 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: ant]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
They have to resort to more radical measures as quite frankly the current methods are not working,Monocultures with heavy chemical reliance are not the answer..
Also it boils down to money as long as all the big chem companies are making bucket loads of profits then that is all that matters, then nothing will change.
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181951 - 08/03/2013 17:21 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
No ant! We can easily feed the world population with food to spare for the moment unless as I am now seeing, global cooling as predicted by an increasing number of solar physicists begins sometime around 2020 and then all bets are off when it comes to food production specifically in the colder food production regions of Canada and across Russia, Scandanavia and northern Europe.

Like every industry, the ways and means of producing more for less inputs is also a factor in agriculture just like it is in any other industry.
I don't think anybody would expect that agriculture of today should still be maintained at the level of the Middle Ages when even animal power was still somewhat rare and only affordable by the wealthy.

The simple fact that today only about 5% or less, possibly 4% of the Australia's population is engaged directly in agriculture or food production versus the 80 % of the population engaged in food production across the world only some 250 years ago should give pause for thought to those who advocate a chemical free, mechanical absent, non animal per PETA [ ordinary humans don't count with that lot,] agriculture should rethink their biases and unworldly and somewhat irrational and ignorant view of agriculture in our modern world.

The thought of making some 18.5 million residents [ ie; 80% of the population as per medieval, non chemical, non mechanical , human labour based agriculture ] of Australia go back out into the country to swing hoes and picks and till the soil with primitive equipment is hardly likely to go down very well with the present mob.

Mao Zedong tried it in China in the 1966 Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution when tens of millions of urban dwellers were forced to go into the backblocks of China and till the soil with hand implements.
A few millions died from hunger as a result.

OK you will say that is ridiculous but what is the other alternative you trying to present.
Like any and every industry there is no halfway house in agriculture.

We continue to move forward using modern technology or those who are the food producers, the farmers who ultimately produce all of the food we eat and rely totally on move out for better life and food production just simply stops.

Without that modern technology and despite all the hoo haa about so called chemical free farming of which a few have tried it around here but are no longer around as they went bankrupt, then food prices would rise to levels where buying food of any type would become the by far major expense in a household budget.
Already many of the poorest in this world spend around 80% of their total income on just buying the minimum of the cheapest food they can.

So why are the anti rural luddites trying to make prices even higher by stopping access by farmers to the latest technology whether chemicals for weed control or environmental red tape of monstrous proportions and etc while they of course fully expect and get the latest technology in the businesses and jobs they are involved with and this despite human health and perfomance problems that arise with any technological advance?

If you are not prepared to live in isolation and forgo all the advantages and comfortable living the city fleshpots provides then don't imagine or try to force others such as farmers to do what you won't accept and do yourself.

What I am seeing here is a set of glaring double standards which is is very common throughout city and urban thinking that farming families are somehow expected to live in and accept a much lower standard of living and have little access or are denied access to the fleshpots of city living while those same city and urban dwellers would refuse completely to accept such a much lower standard of living for themselves.

As I have posted above, most city and urban dwellers wish the best for those rural farming families but certain radical and ignorant believers in some sort of fanciful and imagined fantasy of rural living are trying to impose their corrupted vision of agriculture and food production onto farmers right across the western world and probably even more so in Australia, the most urbanised country per capita in the world.

Top
#1181956 - 08/03/2013 17:31 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
explorer Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 29/01/2011
Posts: 546
Loc: Coolum Beach, Qld
@_Y_s, I totally agree with your last two posts (hope you allow me to shorten your nickname like that) ....

I totally believe that if only a portion of the world population think in these terms, all the hunger and overpopulation excuses used today by chemical companies and mono=cultured farming will soon be a thing of the past ... future generations will look at us in horror, as example of stupid generations that are destroying the environment and creating their own famine and doom!

Top
#1181961 - 08/03/2013 17:37 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Given we have what we have in this world today, whats your alternative in the way of food production sufficient to feed the world's population , explorer?


Edited by ROM (08/03/2013 17:41)

Top
#1181968 - 08/03/2013 18:01 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: explorer]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4067
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: explorer
@_Y_s, I totally agree with your last two posts (hope you allow me to shorten your nickname like that) ....

I totally believe that if only a portion of the world population think in these terms, all the hunger and overpopulation excuses used today by chemical companies and mono=cultured farming will soon be a thing of the past ... future generations will look at us in horror, as example of stupid generations that are destroying the environment and creating their own famine and doom!


Hi Explorer, no i don't mind at all! good to see a bit of support, i can also imagine that future generations will look back and think how stupid were the people back in the 2000's that genetically modified anything that moved and nobody did anything to try and stop it. (if it aint broke don't mess with it!!)
There is no need for the geneticly modified mentality, the only thing GM is driven by is corporate greed, not to "feed a starving world" or food security, who do you think started the paraphrase " we need to feed a starving population" it was Monsanto back in the '80's.

It is a bit like the logic of seed banks, people would rather store seed so future generations "might" be able to do something later on down the track once that plants have become extinct. geez how radical is that! grin would it not be more logical to try and save and preserve a plant species while it is still alive rather than waiting till it is extinct then say, hhmmmm maybe we should do something about that?

ROM geneticist modification is not the answer that is for sure!
_________________________
Why is it in the era of "Time saving" devices, that people are more "Time poor" than ever?

Humans think they are the fabric of society,when they are merely part of the thread.


Top
#1181971 - 08/03/2013 18:14 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
explorer Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 29/01/2011
Posts: 546
Loc: Coolum Beach, Qld
Start at your table, what you put on your plate keeping in mind you may be the drop that overflows the glass (regarding the survival of our eco system) ... that is all you can do ... is a no brainer really ...

Top
Page 2 of 43 < 1 2 3 4 ... 42 43 >


Who's Online
13 registered (Kino, Mathew, DDstorm, Ricky, Mad Elf #1.5, ozthunder, Stargate, Hagrid, Befour, Homer, 3 invisible), 182 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Adele, David Simpson., HannahJayne, krambo, krambo22, Pancake, weather noob
Forum Stats
29419 Members
32 Forums
23729 Topics
1469235 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image