Page 22 of 43 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 42 43 >
Topic Options
#1210326 - 16/09/2013 10:20 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: SBT
Vitamins and minerals have been added to foods for at least 100 years. If it didn't work then why are they still doing it?


So,tell me this if the food was so nutritious in the first place, why would they need to 'add' vitamins and minerals to it?

Why do they strip vitamins and minerals out of food when they process it and replace it with low grade spray-on vitamins?

Why do they strip all the goodness out of the foods in the first place?

Take wheat as an example, where does the bulk of the goodness come from? the germ and the bran, what do they do when the process wheat for flour? remove the germ and the bran what do the leave? white flour with very little nutrient content.

Quote:
One factor that limits the benefits of food fortification is that isolated nutrients added back into a processed food that has had many of its nutrients removed, does not always result in the added nutrients being as bioavailable as they would be in the original, whole food. An example is skim milk that has had the fat removed, and then had vitamin A and vitamin D added back. Vitamins A and D are both fat soluble and not water soluble, so a person consuming skim milk in the absence of fats may not be able to absorb enough of these vitamins as one would be able to absorb from drinking whole milk.
_________________________
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
#1210777 - 19/09/2013 08:53 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
This is what happens when people stick together and fight back against big Monopolizing companies that want to take away peoples common rights to save their own seed!
Well done!!! grin

National Farmers and Social Strike gets seeds control law 970 suspended



In Colombia after 21 days of a nationwide strike by thousands of farmers, blocking more than 40 roads nationwide, protesting farmers forced the Colombian government to negotiate the rejection of a farm bill and the release of detained protesters.

"Thousands and thousands of farmers poured their heart and soul into protests of "Law 970," which made it illegal for farmers to save seeds in order for transnational corporations and other companies to gain monopoly control over the market."

They shut down food production and rallied against GMOs and for control of their own seeds...and they won! This is how it's done, folks!

http://www.popularresistance.org/video-c...olonged-strike/


And the news just gets better and better! grin

Five Million Brazilian Farmers take on Biotech Giant Monsanto

Five million Brazilian farmers have taken on US based biotech company Monsanto through a lawsuit demanding return of about 6.2 billion euros taken as royalties from them. The farmers are claiming that the powerful company has unfairly extracted these royalties from poor farmers because they were using seeds produced from crops grown from Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds, reports Merco Press.

In April this year, a judge in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, ruled in favor of the farmers and ordered Monsanto to return royalties paid since 2004 or a minimum of $2 billion. The ruling said that the business practices of seed multinational Monsanto violate the rules of the Brazilian Cultivars Act (No. 9.456/97). Monsanto has appealed against the order and a federal court ruling on the case is now expected by 2014.About 85% of Brazil’s massive soyabean crop output is produced from genetically engineered seeds. Brazil exports about $24.1 billion worth of soyabeans annually, more than a quarter of its total agri-exports.
Farmers say that they are using seeds produced many generations after the initial crops from the genetically modified Monsanto seeds were grown. Farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from “renewal” seed harvests. Renewal crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest. Monsanto disagrees, demanding royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically-engineered seed. Because the engineered seed is patented, Monsanto not only charges an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing two per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed.

The first transgenic soy seeds were illegally smuggled into Brazil from neighboring Argentina in 1998 and their use was banned and subject to prosecution until the last decade, according to the state-owned Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA).The ban has since been lifted and now 85 percent of the country’s soybean crop (25 million hectares or 62 million acres) is genetically modified, Alexandre Cattelan, an EMBRAPA researcher told Merco Press. Brazil is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of soyabean. China is one of its biggest buyers.

“Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production,” Jane Berwanger, lawyer for the farmers told the media agencies.

http://www.popularresistance.org/five-million-brazilian-farmers-take-on-biotech-giant-monsanto/
_________________________
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
#1210791 - 19/09/2013 13:55 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Another good reason to avoid imported foods from China.......

22 TONS OF FAKE BEEF SEIZED IN CHINA

This week, police in Xi’an province reported that they had found and seized more than 22 tons of fake beef at a local factory. Get this: the “beef” was actually made from pork (which is considerably cheaper than beef) that had been treated with chemicals including paraffin wax and industrial salts to make it look like it came from a cow. Shanghiist reports that the factory sold more than 1,500 kilos (3,000 pounds) of the fake beef to local markets at around 25 to 33 yuan ($4 or $5) per kilo. Six workshops that were producing the fake beef have been discovered and shut down.

This isn’t the first instance of fake meat being sold in China. In May of this year, Medical Daily reported that 904 people were arrested in China for “meat-related offenses” over three months at the beginning of 2013. Included in these arrests was one gang of meat crooks who made over 10 million yuan ($1.6 million) by selling rat, fox, and mink meat at markets. This makes us wonder what impostor foods we might be eating, which in turn makes us very, very uncomfortable.



http://firstwefeast.com/eat/20000-kilos-of-fake-beef-seized-in-xian-china/
_________________________
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
#1210848 - 20/09/2013 08:32 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
El Salvador Government Bans Roundup over Deadly Kidney Disease

In a shocking move the government of El Salvador in Central America has banned the use of Glyphosate (Roundup) and 52 other dangerous chemicals a recent press release by the El Salvador Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources made clear.

With 45 votes in favor, members of the FMLN, Unidos por El salvador and GANA approved the amendment of a Law on the control of pesticides, fertilizers and products for agricultural use, which allows the prohibition of 53 chemicals in El Salvador, Central America Data announced.

Among the list of the banned 53 chemicals are Paraquat, Glyphosate (Roundup) and Endosulfan.

The move comes amidst a mysterious kidney disease afflicting the region’s agricultural laborers. Central America’s health ministries signed a declaration in March 2013 citing the ailment as a top public health priority and committing to a series of steps to combat its reach, the Center of Public Intergrity revealed.

Over the last two years, the Center for Public Integrity has examined how a rare type of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is killing thousands of agricultural workers along Central America’s Pacific Coast, as well as in Sri Lanka and India. Scientists have yet to definitively uncover the cause of the malady, although emerging evidence points to toxic heavy metals contained in pesticides as a potential culprit.

El Salvador presented findings from an ongoing official study, conducted jointly with the Pan American Health Organization, suggesting that pesticides and fertilizers containing heavy metals may be to blame. Environmental tests of soil and water samples in a village heavily affected by CKD, Ciudad Romero, found the presence of high levels of cadmium and arsenic, heavy metals toxic to the kidneys. Among a sample of 42 residents of Ciudad Romero who suffer from CKD, all reported applying pesticides without any protective equipment.

Two chemicals in particular have come into investigators’ crosshairs
in both El Salvador and Sri Lanka: 2,4-D and glyphosate. 2,4-D is a common herbicide used to control weeds, and glyphosate is the active ingredient in the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup.

In late 2012 Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s long-term study into Monsanto’s GM NK603 maize and Roundup showed an escalation of signs of liver and kidney toxicity found in Monsanto 90-day feeding trial (Hammond, B., et al. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42(6): 1003-1014), leading to liver / kidney failure and premature death, especially in males.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/09/19/e...e/#.Ujt5TsakxcJ
_________________________
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
#1211315 - 24/09/2013 16:28 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
I wonder how many people drink this?


They may as well be drinking a cup of sugar!....
Ingredients: Sugar, Fat Reduced Cocoa Powder (15%), Emulsifier Lecithin (Soy 322), Cinnamon. Lecithin (Soy 322), Salt, Flavour
- Sugars 81.4 g per 100g

So this junk is over 80% sugar, wonder how many people would add 1-2 or more teaspoons of sugar when they actually make it?
_________________________
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
#1211381 - 25/09/2013 08:53 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
The tides are a turnin so it would seem....


The Movement is Growing: Non–GMO Products Could Reach $264 Billion in U.S. Sales by 2017



According to Non-GMO Foods: U.S. Market Perspective, a recent report by Packaged Facts, products that do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will account for 30% of U.S. food and beverage sales by 2017.

Packaged Facts defines non-GMO produce as organic foods; foods actively marketed as non–GMO; some “natural” foods (it notes that many foods labelled as “natural” contain GMOs); and foods that are not actively marketed as organic, “natural,” or non–GMO, but which are included under the definition because they do not contain ingredients from GM crops, or meat, eggs, or milk from animals who have been fed GM crops.

The report found that Hispanic and African-American consumers are more concerned about the presence of GMOs in their food than those in other racial groups, while consumers under 45 are more likely to purchase non-GMO foods than those aged over 45. Urbanites are more likely to purchase non–GMO products than suburban dwellers, who are in turn more likely to purchase them than those living in rural communities. The consumers most concerned about GMOs in their food are mothers in their mid-30s who live in urban middle-class households.

Sixty–one countries around the world, including China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the member states of the European Union, have enacted laws requiring the mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs. The U.S. currently has no such laws in place, but the Packaged Foods report predicts that if they are introduced, non-GMO products could come to account for as high as 40% of national food and beverage sales by 2017.

This prediction bears witness to the likely future impact of the non–GMO movement which has largely been driven by the work of advocacy groups such as the Non–GMO Project and the Center for Food Safety.

While recent efforts to introduce a mandatory labelling system for GM produce in the U.S. have met with failure, changes are afoot. In March 2013, Whole Foods Market declared that they would be the first national grocery chain to aim towards total GMO transparency, and are hoping to achieve this goal by 2018. In April, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate introduced a new bill with the stated aim of establishing a “consistent and enforceable standard for labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.”

Andrew Kimbrell, the executive director of the Center for Food Safety, states that “we all have the basic human right to know what we put in our bodies and where it came from. If food manufacturers and elected officials don’t want to put the facts of food ingredients on product labels, you can bet something is very wrong.”

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/the-m...-sales-by-2017/
_________________________
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
#1211382 - 25/09/2013 08:56 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Eater Beware: The Next Pink Slime?

Last year, when Americans learned that their hamburgers contained “pink slime,” swift and immediate action was taken: they wanted it out. And burger chains and grocery stores swiftly dumped the ingredient.

A similar issue might be brewing. Americans are learning that something else was quietly slipped into our foods: genetically engineered ingredients. These ingredients, just like “pink slime,” are not labeled.

Americans didn’t even look at the science of “pink slime,” they were simply offended that ingredients had been put into meat without a label. It appears that the same thing is happening with genetically engineered ingredients, many now regulated by the EPA as pesticides (see EPA’s Regulation of Bacillus thuringiensis crops).

There is a lot of “he said” “she said” science around genetically engineered foods. And a lot of bullying.

Anyone who steps in to speak on the topic, regardless of which side that they represent, gets quickly slammed and labeled which is ironic as labels are the very thing that the industry is so allergic to.

So do genetically engineered foods cause food allergies? According to Harvard University and studies conducted on the influence that funding sources have on science, it depends on who you ask.

Back in 2006, when I first saw that the EPA was asking this question (after these foods had already been introduced into our food supply), I looked into the research and reached out to to Venu Gangur, MSU assistant professor of food science and human nutrition, who also is a faculty member in the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center. In 2006, he had made this statement: “Genetically engineered crops are created by inserting a protein from a different organism into the original crop’s genome. This is usually done to create a plant that is more resistant to insects or diseases. The Food and Agriculture Organization within the World Health Organization has a structured approach to determining whether genetically engineered foods cause allergies. But it has a major flaw. A critical question in that process asks, ‘Does the protein cause an allergic reaction in animals?’ The problem is that there has been no good animal model available to test this.”

In other words, “no evidence of harm” is not the same as “evidence of no harm.” We do not have the testing methods.

When I then reached out to the largest food allergy organization in the world to address this issue, they had an allergic reaction to me, prompting me to a dig a little deeper into who funded their work and that of their scientists and allergists. In 2006, I found myself in the middle of a story that I really did not want to tell: allergists working for Monsanto and Kraft funding food allergy websites. The patents granted to the allergist never resulted in a profitable product line, but what it did do is send a red flag up that allergy research was being funded by corporate interests and incomplete at best.

What I quickly learned is that we do not have tests that tell a parent if her child is allergic to conventional soybeans, the kind in our food supply for generations, or if her child is allergic to the genetically engineered parts now found in soybeans that were introduced in the late 1990s. We do not know with any certainty if someone is allergic to corn or to the genetically engineered organisms now found in it because we do not have that level of testing.

We do not have this kind of testing distinction in allergists offices, so there is not yet evidence that these crops are responsible for the increased rates of allergic conditions.

But no evidence of harm is not the same as “evidence of no harm.” And without labels, there is no way to trace the escalating rates of allergic disease back to genetically engineered foods if it is the source.

Correlation is not causation, but the Centers for Disease Control reports a 265% increase in the rates of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions over a ten year period.

Children born outside the US had significantly lower prevalence of allergic disease (20.3%) than those born in the US (34.5%) according to Jonathan Silverberg of St Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.

We have learned what can happen with corporate funded science from the tobacco industry, so any scientific discussion requires full disclosure of any institutional ties, research grants or patents of those involved to preserve the dialogue and the scientific integrity of the debate.

And while the industry loves to highlight the number of academic and science institutes to promote the acceptance of their products, it is critical to first look into who is funding that science and the length of those studies.

As the Union for Concerned Scientists states:

“Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation’s ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment.”

In a Science Magazine in 2000, a Spanish researcher named Jose L. Domingo who later went on to write a 2007 paper, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature,”found only seven peer reviewed papers on genetically engineered crop safety as of 2000, most of them dealing with short-term nutritional effects.

According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, who worked in Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997, served for 1.5 years as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at the end of the Carter Administration, and following the election of Ronald Reagan, moved to Capitol Hill in early 1981 and was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues, what that means is that at the time that two genetically engineered products were approved for the food supply, there were no studies in the open scientific literature.

Can you imagine if a medical device or a new pharmaceutical drug were introduced with no studies in the open scientific literature for public review? Or if a car was introduced onto the highway in the same manner?

The concern is shared by the National Academy of Sciences in the paper, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences, ”As with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”

Furthermore, according to Benbook, as of 2007 and Domingo’s more recent and comprehensive review, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature“, there are still no more than about ten studies assessing the toxicological impact of genetically engineered ingredients in our food supply, almost all are limited in scope (there is a review of 24 studies focusing on nutritional equivalency), and short term, with most of them dealing with genetically engineered foods other than corn and soybeans.

Which means that the bottom line is that there are few if any published, peer reviewed studies on the toxicological impacts of today’s commercial genetically engineered ingredients now found in our food supply, and almost none on older genetically engineered ingredients, that provide evidence that show that these foods are toxicologically safe.

At the conclusion of the abstract for the paper, the author himself poses the question: “where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?”

In light of the escalating rates of cancers, allergies, autism and other conditions in the health of our children who have earned the title of “Generation Rx” and the financial burden these conditions are placing on our health care system and economy, it is a critical question for any reporter to ask, along with who has funded the science.

Is correlation causation? Not at all, but with millions of Americans beginning to wake up to the fact that we have additives in our food supply, from lean beef trimmings, to artificial growth hormones to genetically engineered ingredients, additives that were not in our foods a generation ago, we are asking for more science, integrity in science, full disclosure of the financial engineering behind the science, and for labels and the right to make an informed choice about what we are feeding our families.

We label if orange juice comes from concentrate, but not if our food is made with genetically engineered organisms designed to produce their own insecticides or withstand increasing doses of weedkillers. Labeling the how orange juice is produced gives all Americans a choice. So would labeling genetically engineered foods.

So while the jury is still out on the science, this really isn’t about the science. It’s about the liberty to choose what we eat based on how it is produced. We are told if milk is pasteurized, we should be told if our food has been genetically engineered.

http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bites/2013/09/24/eater-beware-the-next-pink-slime/
_________________________
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
#1211494 - 26/09/2013 08:31 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
More from America....

What’s in Your Vinegar?

Truly, is nothing sacred? If you’ve been grabbing the same vinegar off the shelf for years, not giving it a second thought, it’s time to do a little label reading. Apple cider vinegar? Depending on your brand, it may now be ‘apple cider flavored‘ vinegar. Ditto for what you thought was white wine vinegar.

Heinz doesn’t address the ‘apple cider flavored’ vinegar on its site, but here’s what they have to say about the clear stuff that used to be white wine vinegar:

Heinz® Distilled White Vinegar is made from sun-ripened grain and crystal clear water.

Sun-ripened grain. That sounds nice, doesn’t it? But the picture that accompanies that statement shows an ear of corn. And you can bet that corn is GMO.

UPDATE

Directly from the Heinz FAQ page:

Heinz® Distilled White Vinegar and Apple Cider Flavored Vinegar are sourced from corn, not from wheat, rye, barley, or oats. Wine Vinegar and Apple Cider Vinegar are sourced from grapes and apples, respectively, not grains.

So Heinz has two different apple cider vinegar products; one sourced from apples, the other sourced from corn and flavored to taste like apple cider vinegar. Watch what you’re buying!

http://www.attainable-sustainable.net/whats-in-your-vinegar/
_________________________
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
#1211495 - 26/09/2013 08:37 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Yah baby! about time people in the US senate got some gumption!!! cheers bounce
Standby for more lawsuits against monsanto to come after this!!

Senate CR to strip Monsanto rider

A controversial legislative rider added by Monsanto to the Agriculture Department budget last spring will no longer be effective after Sept. 30 under a draft stopgap government funding bill being drafted by Senate Democrats.
The provision touched off a storm last spring as critics accused Monsanto of “court-stripping” to protect its sales of the genetically modified seeds for which the St. Louis-based giant is a pioneer in commercializing.


The continuing resolution approved by the House last week would extend the rider without comment for the first months of the new fiscal year. But the Senate substitute, to be unveiled Wednesday, will explicitly go back and make clear that that Monsanto-backed provision will end this month.
“That provision will be gone,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), confirming the change to POLITICO. The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit, welcomed the decision as “a major victory for the food movement” and “sea change in a political climate that all too often allows corporate earmarks to slide through must-pass legislation.”
(Also on POLITICO: Elizabeth Warren joins GMO labeling fray)
“Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Center.
The whole dispute has been overshadowed by the larger fight over Republican efforts to use the same CR to cut off funding needed by President Barack Obama to implement his health care reforms. But for many environmental and food safety groups, the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” —as the rider was called—became a major cause last spring, generating a huge amount of Internet traffic and calls on Obama to veto the agriculture budget.
Caught in the middle was Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) who had inherited legislative agreements made under her predecessor, the late Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). Mikulski promised then that she would do everything she could to terminate the provision with the new fiscal year. But the CR posed its own challenges since typically the leadership simply extends current spending and related provisions for the life of the resolution.
(Also on POLITICO: Monsanto, DuPont pour millions into GMO fight)
This is essentially what would happen under the House CR running through Dec. 15. Mikulski wants a shorter end date, Nov. 15. And given the Monsanto controversy, she and Pryor, chairman of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee, chose to act and take it out after Sept. 30.
Their decision was helped along by the fact that even early proponents in the House Appropriations Committee appear to have backed away. Indeed the fiscal 2014 agriculture appropriations bill reported by the House panel but never voted upon on the floor, did not extend the rider.
Monsanto and its allies have argued that what the company sought was no more than what some federal courts have done themselves in the past: Allow farmers to continue to use GMO seed –under environmental guidelines—while the court review continues.
(Also on POLITICO: Big Agriculture flexes its muscle)
Monsanto successfully expanded support among farm groups also interested in some such stewardship program. But the language itself was unusually strong in that it directed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in no uncertain terms about how he should respond in future court cases impacting GMO seeds.
The secretary “shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law… immediately grant” temporary permits to continue using the seed at the request of a farmer or producer wanting such a stewardship program, the provision reads. And while Vilsack has been a big champion of the biotech industry, he was uncomfortable with what he saw as an effort to “pre-empt judicial review.”
“We have all known this rider’s days were numbered,” O’Neil told POLITICO. “But given the recent GMO contamination episodes of wheat and alfalfa in Oregon and Washington it is clear that our nation’s safeguards, in particular those of the federal courts, should not be under attack from policy riders like this.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/se...l#ixzz2fwky9tMj
_________________________
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
#1211610 - 26/09/2013 20:56 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
datadog Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/01/2013
Posts: 199
CO2, the stuff of life.

JoNova has an interesting article on CO2 and plant production. Simply amazing just how much draw down of CO2 there is each day...

"A paper that is nearly 60 years old shows us just how intrinsically important CO2 is to life.

An acre of corn is a living machine drawing CO2 from the air around it. In windless conditions, CO2 concentrations over a cornfield build up each night as CO2 diffuses from higher air and the organic matter and bacteria create CO2 from the soil. A paper by Chapman et al from 1954, shows that as soon as the sun comes up, to power-up those dormant photosynthetic cells, the plants rapidly draw down as much CO2 as possible, and when the CO2 levels fall too low, plant growth surely slows.

On a windless day CO2 values rose to 410ppm overnight and fell to 210ppm during the morning.

This graph shows CO2 content of the air over a cornfield on a still day (no wind). Sunrise occurs at 5am and CO2 levels plummet til 8am, reaching their lowest by 1pm, which is nearly half the CO2 concentration of the peak reached overnight. The corn is affecting CO2 levels in air even as high as 150m or 500ft above. These level out by around 8am and only start to increase again, a couple of hours after sunset.

No wonder some farmers use greenhouses and pump in CO2 to boost their yields. The afternoon sun goes a-wasted as plants growth slows because CO2 levels are not high enough.

The message to gardeners is that this is why plants that get morning sun have an advantage..."
continues - http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/plants-...day/#more-30056








.

Top
#1211638 - 27/09/2013 09:45 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: datadog]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
why are there so many food allergies now

In the mid-1990's, new food proteins were engineered and introduced into our food supply (GMOs), yet many people are still, to this day, clueless about this. No human trials were ever conducted to see if these genetically engineered proteins were actually safe for animal- and human consumption. And now we have explosive increases in food allergies. This is no coincidence.

Five years ago Robyn O’Brien was an average American mom; busy with four kids, living on a limited budget, and not in the least interested in hearing anyone lecture her about what to feed her kids. Then one day, after being served a typical breakfast consisting of Eggo waffles, blue-colored yoghurt and scrambled eggs, her youngest child suddenly had an acute allergic reaction. That very day, Robyn threw herself into researching food allergies, and virtually overnight, Robyn became a real-food activist.

She quickly learned that the foods sold in our grocery stores are not necessarily safe. On the contrary, many, if not most of them, now contain "foreign" ingredients that have never been tested for safety.

That something has gone awry is obvious when you take a look at the statistics. Between 1997 and 2002 the number of peanut allergies doubled, and the number of hospitalizations related to allergic reactions to food increased by a whopping 265 percent. One out of 17 children now has some form of food allergy. And allergy rates are rising.

When you consider that a food allergic reaction occurs when your body reacts to a food protein as a foreign invader (just like a virus or bacteria) which triggers an inflammatory response, the obvious question then becomes:

Is There Something "Foreign" in Our Food Today that Wasn't There Before?

Absolutely!

Processed foods in general can contribute to allergies for a number of different reasons. Most processed foods contain a variety of food colorings, flavors, preservatives, and other additives can have a major impact. But there's another, even more insidious hazard lurking in American food stores...

In the mid-1990's, new food proteins were engineered and introduced into our food supply, yet many people are still, to this day, clueless about this. As O'Brien states, it was clearly done to maximize profitability for the food industry, yet NO human trials were ever conducted to see if these genetically engineered proteins were actually safe for animal- and human consumption.

One of the first foods to undergo this change was milk, which incidentally is also the number one food allergen in the US.

In 1994, the dairy industry started using a genetically engineered growth hormone, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) on cows in order to increase milk production. However, it resulted in higher rates of disease in the treated livestock. To counteract the ill effects, dairies also had to start using more antibiotics, which we now know is one of the driving factors behind the rise in antibiotic-resistant superbugs in humans.

While Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and 27 countries in Europe refused to use rBGH due to the fact that it had not been proven safe, the United States took the opposite stance, and basically decided that since it hadn't been proven dangerous, it would be allowed...

As inconceivable as it may seem, prior to rBGH being introduced into the milk - and every other conceivable dairy product - that millions of Americans consume every day, it had only been tested on 30 rats for 90 days!

Why You Should be Concerned About rBGH in Your Milk

Samuel Epstein, MD, a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is one of the top experts on cancer prevention. He is frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment that may cause cancer, and he has written eight books, including two books on this particular topic What's in Your Milk?, and Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk?

In his books, Dr. Epstein explains that rBGH milk is "qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk," and is "supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers."

In addition to increased IGF-1 levels, other differences between rBGH milk and natural milk include:

Full 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
#1211911 - 29/09/2013 21:08 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
Farm Weather Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/11/2009
Posts: 845
Loc: West Mallee SA
mods weve all complained before and you do nothing about it but don't you think yassie should have his own website else were and not on WZ
its turned all ag minded people and ag people off the ag forum
_________________________
Average Rainfall 340mm

Top
#1211915 - 29/09/2013 22:03 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Farm Weather]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish


Is this thread not about farming? food production? and consumers eating the end product?
If people want to have their 2 bits then chime in.... smile

Isn't that what threads are for? starting debate? debating a topic or a point?

Why, is it because the topics that are up you don't like that someone having a differing opinion other than your own?
It is a fact of life that everyone has their own opinion and is entitled to share it and if you want to get something off your chest then debate it, not just ring the bell for the mods because you don't like the topic at hand?

There is a whole bunch of threads here that nobody is posting in.
_________________________
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
#1211944 - 30/09/2013 11:09 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
we are winning fight against monsanto, gmos

Thanks to the intellectual campaigns we have been launching on the front lines against the agricultural corruption brought upon by Monsanto and its GMOs, we are now winning the overall war against the corporate monopoly and genetically modified creations at large.

One such major victory, which occurred as a result of activism and overall outrage from the public, is the announcement by Senators that they are going to ‘kill’ the Monsanto Protection Act renewal legislation. The Monsanto Protection Act, as you are probably aware, was of course the legislative rider (a slippery way to including law into a bill that is oftentimes irrelevant) that granted Monsanto legal immunity for its crops up until September 30th of 2013.

A rider that some slimy senators were attempted to renew for additional months.

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

But even though Monsanto was surely willing to help sway the politicians financially, they simply could not go against the colossal amounts of public outrage over the support for Monsanto and GMOs. A powerful form of activism that we are seeing more and more often around the nation and worldwide. The same powerful activism that has Monsanto cowering in fear of the general public that is awakening the disease machine practices of the company.

It is no surprise, then, that Monsanto has been dishing out millions in attempts to squash GMO labeling initiatives in the state of Washington. And it is therefore no surprise that even grocery chains and other corporations have been caught laundering cash in order to defeat the profit-threatening GMO labeling campaigns that would let customers know if they were consuming genetically tainted food.

Monsanto may be winning a few battles thanks to deep pockets and a willingness to do whatever is necessary to squash opposition (such as paying its way into the Prop 37 GMO labeling campaign in California), but overall we are winning the war for our food supply. Monsanto may escape GMO labeling for some time, but now even politicians are not able to side with Monsanto as they know they would lose their positions and face extreme backlash. The public is waking up, and Monsanto’s time is limited.

Stay tuned to NaturalSociety and my other updates in the near future as we push forward the campaign to end Monsanto and restore the integrity of our food supply.

http://www.nationofchange.org/we-are-winning-fight-against-monsanto-gmos-1380463440
_________________________
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
#1212089 - 01/10/2013 06:17 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Greg Sorenson]
Farm Weather Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 10/11/2009
Posts: 845
Loc: West Mallee SA
yassie haven't you ever wondered why people don't post here and your basically the only one, you obviously intelligent you and cut and paste so just think about it
_________________________
Average Rainfall 340mm

Top
#1212169 - 01/10/2013 19:22 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7154
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Isn't that what threads are for? starting debate? debating a topic or a point?

I'd think you need people to be interested in discussing the subject matter, which means encouraging debate, so that it's not all one person's point-of-view, cut-and-paste, original research or whatever. I tried it myself in another thread ("Streamflow Observations"), but am unsure how successful that was...my concern is the narrowing of interests ranges and a focus on only a few subjects when reality or our environment is more complicated than that.

A thread first needs to be inviting and/or interesting - intellect does not even have to be a point of contention if it's left open to anyone who wants to contribute.

---------------

My main concern with farming and food production is a chewing up of the country-side (here, in Australia) to feed an ever growing population. Rarely do I hear "sustainable economic development" over "economic growth,"...that's just my perspective smile .

Top
#1212170 - 01/10/2013 19:24 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Farm Weather]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Farm weather, there are 171 threads in this Ag forum and only 12 separate threads have replies in the past 12 months 159 separate threads that have not had replies since August 2012 long before me posting here, so i can say that i am not the only reason there are tumbleweeds floating thru here, from what i can recall there was actually a rise in post's after i started posting here as it encouraged more 'debate' on various topics.

ROM was one of the posters who contributed mostly to these threads, however we all know he was banned, my point of view is i am not here to make friend's (because i have none already to start with smile ) and even if i can make one person stop and think about what they spray on their food or what they are actually eating then it is all worth it.

Some people may not be unaware (or don't care what they are eating) but one day the penny will drop and then they will stop and start to question what they are actually eating and then start doing their own research. smile
_________________________
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
#1212240 - 02/10/2013 12:17 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: Seira]
@_Yasified_shak Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/03/2009
Posts: 4066
Loc: El Arish
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Isn't that what threads are for? starting debate? debating a topic or a point?

I'd think you need people to be interested in discussing the subject matter, which means encouraging debate, so that it's not all one person's point-of-view, cut-and-paste, original research or whatever. I tried it myself in another thread ("Streamflow Observations"), but am unsure how successful that was...my concern is the narrowing of interests ranges and a focus on only a few subjects when reality or our environment is more complicated than that.

A thread first needs to be inviting and/or interesting - intellect does not even have to be a point of contention if it's left open to anyone who wants to contribute.

---------------

My main concern with farming and food production is a chewing up of the country-side (here, in Australia) to feed an ever growing population. Rarely do I hear "sustainable economic development" over "economic growth,"...that's just my perspective smile .


It is funny though Cosmic if you didn't 'cut and paste' articles you would get the "well where is your source" reply.....
Sometimes a cut and paste article can explain the situation much easier and does not need a massive dialogue to go along with it.

the thing that really get's me is all this rubbish about food scarcity,food shortages, food security and so on, at this point in time there is enough food grown to feed a population of 9-10 billion people, if food were in such short supply why are there so many obese people? if food was in such sort supply why does so much get wasted because it is not cosmetically perfect i mean really how many people eat a banana skin? yet how many would look at fruit that has marked on the skin or blemishes and would go "eeew i,m not eating that!" yet the fruit inside is perfect!

Same as the notion that all the fruit has to be exactly the same size, same shape, same colour...
Basically just under 1/2 of all food grown is wasted from between the farm to the consumer at the end...
It is such a wasteful society toady and it will only get worse...

you have to ask yourself why aussie farmers are selling up farms ripping out fruit trees and so on and the Chinese are coming in buying up all the farming land smirk
_________________________
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
#1212257 - 02/10/2013 15:22 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Andy Double U Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 28/10/2006
Posts: 1829
Loc: Mundoolun, SE QLD, 129m ASL
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
ROM was one of the posters who contributed mostly to these threads, however we all know he was banned


Bzzzzt, wrong and not for the first time. He along with several others that used to frequent these forums were temporarily banned, it's just thanks to some rather interesting decisions (read irregular) in regards to forum operation and moderation they've taken their bats and balls and have moved on.

Top
#1212258 - 02/10/2013 15:30 Re: Farming, food production and consumers [Re: @_Yasified_shak]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7154
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
you have to ask yourself why aussie farmers are selling up farms ripping out fruit trees and so on and the Chinese are coming in buying up all the farming land smirk

There is a flip side to that (reported recently)...there was apparently a wine glut in SA. Whether due to changing weather conditions, a lack of demand or what-have-you, it's definitely not good for the economy or the producers.

Top
Page 22 of 43 < 1 2 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 42 43 >


Who's Online
9 registered (Sidney, Mick10, StormQueen, ThunderBob, ashestoashes, dknever, Ollieo, 2 invisible), 248 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
haras, TheAnt
Forum Stats
29401 Members
32 Forums
23726 Topics
1468972 Posts

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