Farming, food production and consumers

Posted by: Greg Sorenson

Farming, food production and consumers - 08/11/2012 17:47

Please post regarding Global & local farming & livestock, food production and consumers here
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/12/2012 11:20

The Ag forum is certainly one of the backwaters of the WZ forums unless we get onto GMO's.

Anyway to liven things up a bit and perhaps as food is the second absolute next to water that mankind MUST have to even survive, we might look at another Matt Ridley opinion piece in the "Wall Street Journal".
This one will really make anybody associated with Agriculture really think and consider their options.

This article below is based on a new paper which I have tried to find on the net but no luck so far.

Just as personal background here, I have until only a couple of years ago, believed for my whole farming life, that the world was inevitably heading for a major world food shortage sometime as the global population continued to grow at a phenomenal speed.
There were about 3.5 billions of mankind in about 1960. There is now over 7 billions .

All the predictions and forecasts of the 1960's and 1970's like the very widely quoted 1972 Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" forecasts, predicted that mankind was going to eat himself out of house and home, use up all the oil and run out of resources and that was supposed to all happen by about the early 1980's.
It didn't happen and it still has not happened even though we now have perhaps another 30% more people to feed than we had in 1980.

Not only that, the world's farmers and most importantly, the world's plant breeders and food researchers, the real and totally unrecognised heroes of mankind who should be placed on the highest pedestal of scientific respect but are barely recognised, [ climate scientists should be down the bottom somewhere considering the relative importance of the crop researchers and plant breeders in the role of human survival,] together with the world's farmers and their adoption of new technologies for food production have increased the global supplies of food to such levels that farming globally is barely profitable due to excess amounts of grain and staple foods.
There is now so much food in the world that hunger is now limited to an ever smaller percentage of mankind. and for the first time in history, there is not, unless politically and even deliberately created, any famines in the world.

The sheer extent and efficiency of the global transport system is another major factor in this lack of serious hunger almost everywhere in the world in the way in which in a matter of a couple of weeks , the global transport system can shift enormous tonnages of basic staple foods from an area of plenty or even oversupply to areas where there is a desperate need for immediate food supplies.

The final bit of data in the global food equation and one to remember when reading the WSJ article below is that demographers are now becoming doubtful if the world population will even reach the 9 billion mark which was expected to happen around 2040 to 2050.
The slow down in global population growth and even population decline particularly amongst the native born populations of developed countries and in every developed country and now increasingly in the less developed nations is becoming so marked that the previous estimates and projections of global populations is steadily being reduced with the probability that after 2050 the global population will stabilise and then start a long, very slow decline in numbers.

Interestingly, as a by line, one of my brothers and his wife have just come back from a european visit and their comments were that in Europe there were simply no kids. The sons and daughters were often mid to late 20's, unmarried and still living with their parents and had no intentions of having any children.

Some might challenge me on those comments on population and food supplies but if politics and the vicious racial and ideological corruptness and terrorism and crime were neutralised and their effects removed from the global food supply chain there would be no significant hunger on this planet.

As I posted above, I have always believed that a global food shortage was inevitable but in the last couple of years I have now come to believe that this will not be the case with the proviso that a major cooling of the globe, similar to the very cold Maunder Minimum, does not occur over the next couple of decades.

That is something I genuinely fear with the current state of Sun's apparent fall off in activity and the increasing number of predictions from the solar physicists that a very low solar activity period of some decades long may be just starting.
We won't know until another 3 or 4 years past just what is likely to be the short term changes in the global climate due to solar activity or the lack of.

A second factor which i have posted previously on is a good friend of mine and also a farmer with four degrees and a couple of doctorates out of Cambridge [ Tony will kill me if I have that university wrong !] a former member of the CSIRO board and now sits on a couple of UN food committees, told me not long ago that he also believed that the world would one day face a global food shortage.
However one of his UN committees did a study on the amount of arable land in the world that could be still converted to food production and came up with the very surprising conclusion that there was still nearly as much land available for food production as was already being used for food production.

So thats the background to Matt Ridley's quite likely, very controversial The Wall Street Journal article below;

__________________________________________________________________

Our Fading Footprint for Farming Food

It's a brave scientist who dares to announce the turning point of a trend, the top of a graph. A paper published this week does just that, persuasively arguing that a centurieslong trend is about to reverse: the use of land for farming. The authors write: "We are confident that we stand on the peak of cropland use, gazing at a wide expanse of land that will be spared for Nature."


John S. Dykes
If not for biofuels, say scientists, farmland usage would already be declining.

Jesse Ausubel and Iddo Wernick of Rockefeller University, and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, have reached this conclusion by documenting the gradual "dematerialization" of agriculture. Globally, the production of a given quantity of crop requires 65% less land than it did in 1961, thanks to fertilizers, tractors, pesticides, better varieties and other factors. Even corrected for different kinds of crops, the acreage required is falling at 2% a year.

In the U.S., the total corn yield and the total corn acreage tracked each other in lock step between 1870 and 1940—there was no change in average yield per acre. But between 1940 and 2010, corn production almost quintupled, while the acreage devoted to growing corn fell slightly. Similar divergences appeared later in other countries. Indian wheat production increased fivefold after 1970, while wheat acreage crept up by less than 1.5 times. Chinese corn production rose sevenfold over the same period while corn acreage merely doubled.

Yet the amount of farmland in the world was still rising until recently. The reason is that increased farm productivity has been matched by rising demand for food, driven by population growth and swelling affluence. But the effects of these trends are waning.

Global population growth has slowed markedly in recent years—the rate of change halving since 1970 to about 1% a year today. Growing affluence leads people to eat more calories, and especially more meat. Since it takes two to 10 calories of maize or wheat to produce a calorie of meat, depending on the animal, carnivory demands more cropland. But as a country gets richer, total calorie intake soon levels off, even as wealth continues to rise, and the change in meat consumption decelerates. Chinese meat consumption is now rising less than half as fast as Chinese affluence; Indians have grown richer without taking to meat much at all.

What the Rockefeller team did was plug some highly conservative assumptions about the future into a model and see how much land would be required for growing crops in 2060. Compared with current trends, they assumed population growth will fall more slowly, that affluence will increase faster and that the gluttony of people will rise more rapidly. Conversely, they assumed that farm yields would rise more slowly than they have been doing. This seems highly implausible given that the gigantic continent of Africa seems to be at last embarking on a yield-boosting green revolution as far-reaching as Asia's was.

Even with these cautious assumptions, the researchers find that over the next 50 years people are likely to release from farming a land area "1½ times the size of Egypt, 2½ times the size of France, or 10 Iowas, and possibly multiples of this amount."

Indeed, the authors find that this retreat from the land would have already begun but for one factor so lunatic that they cannot imagine it will not be reversed soon: biofuels. If the world had not decided to subsidize the growing of energy crops on 3.4% of arable land, then absolute declines in the acreage of arable land "would have begun during the last decade." The prospect of "the restoration of vast acreages of Nature" is enticing for nature lovers.

Predictions of peak oil have repeatedly proved wrong. But the factors that made them wrong—productivity and technology—are essentially the ones that make a prediction of peak farmland likely to be right.

[ end ]
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/12/2012 11:52

Originally Posted By: ROM


However one of his UN committees did a study on the amount of arable land in the world that could be still converted to food production and came up with the very surprising conclusion that there was still nearly as much land available for food production as was already being used for food production



Great conclusion but using that remaining arable land requires wholesale destruction of what little natural environment that we havn't already trashed. Sorry but I would rather have the environment than the people. We don't need more billions of humans on this planet.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/12/2012 13:29

Yes Brett , trashing the large sections of the natural environment would be the case IF that land was ever needed for food production.
And yes I agree we don't need 9 billions of mankind on this planet but the demographers believe it will sort itself out as I have posted.
And as the WZJ article claims, if proven in the next few years then even with 9 billions there may actually be a reduction in the need for the current land area for food growing.

The worst possible thing to happen here is that because there is an adequate amount of food around at the moment the politicians cut down the amount of research into Ag and Food production research and in the services to the rural based food producers so that they no longer have the ability to continue on with ever better technology to get ever better yields and production out of the same area so as to feed the increasing global population.

The policy of the greens of course is exactly that, to cut back, to force the food producers into far less efficient methods of production by preventing the use of chemicals for pest and weed control, to forcibly stop livestock production just when the increasing living standards around the world are starting to demand more meat, to force out large efficient farm operations in favour of small holdings which are then denied and cannot afford both the better technology and the services that allow a reasonable standard of living in the countryside.
We have been there and done that with the old, small soldier settlement schemes following both world wars and they never worked and worse, gave a lousy existence for those who tried . These small holdings were rapidly amalgamated into much larger and more efficient farms and that process which i now have doubts about beyond a the family farm size, is ongoing.

All of the above are the worst possible ways to ensure ever better and more production from the same land areas to feed the increasing global population.

You could do much worse than write to your local member supporting more money and more research for agriculture.
That way you will be doing something far more productive towards saving rain forests and etc than you ever will by trying to restrict farming and restrict the opening up of new areas and therefore food production.
Farmers are in the game like everybody else, to make a living and make some money.
If the rewards aren't there then there just aren't the people around who will want to go farming. Exactly the situation here in the Wimmera in western Vic due to the very low historical prices for grain and other food products .

The average age of farmers in the Wimmera is now over 60 years and two thirds of the farms will be sold with in the decade according to surveys.
Who will buy those farms we don't know as the young guys can go to town and make twice the money with regular hours and no stress compared to a farm kid.

Perhaps the Chinese corporations seeking food security on behalf of the Chinese Government will move in and that of course spells the demise of the small country towns as nothing is brought in those towns anymore when major corporations let alone international ones take over vast tracts of farm land as the Africans have discovered.

In Horsham alone a regional centre of some 13,000 people, the farmers across the Wimmera pour about about a minimum of $350 million into Horsham's businesses each year. With good year that comes to about $500 million.
I did the this research and the sums for the local paper here only a few weeks ago.

The basic lesson is; IF you want to keep the environment and not have anymore land cleared for food production then the environmentalists should be doing everything in their power to see that huge resources are poured into global agriculture and food research on a continuous basis so as to keep on raising productivity on the land we currently use for food production.

As that WSJ article says, we may even be able to reduce our global food producing footprint with even better crops varieties and better technology.
Instead the stupidity and anti rural bigotry of the greens and environmental lobby who seem incapable of rational thinking are attacking and placing as many impediments and control and destructive regulations on agriculture as they can possibly get through the legislature .
Nor are the courts the least bit sympathetic to the rural people when quite illegal activities by the greens and environmentalists destroy whole industries such as the live cattle trade to indonesia which is now changing it's live cattle acquisition to China as in the Australian this morning.

The anti live trade whack jobs and the bigoted, anti rural left wing ABC whackers have accomplished absolutely nothing except destroy a profitable Australian agricultural industry which looked after it's livestock but which the importers have now moved to a country for their imports where animal husbandry is suspect at very best.


No reflection meant here but to those who say there are too many people on the planet and something should be done about it and those africans and etc shouldn't be allowed to breed like that, I say; OK! when are you going to do the right thing and lead the way by eliminating yourself first?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/12/2012 13:49

Just as an example of the bias within the bureaucracy against rural folk.
I was a trustee for some 28 years for the land, brought by the Victorian wheat growers in the 1950's, on which the now large Ag research institute, the "Grain's Innovation Park" is built here in Horsham.

The top plant breeders and researchers, and there is about 180 of them, regularly told me that they dropped some $3000 to $4000 a year in salary [ and that was some 4 or 5 years ago ] working here in Horsham compared to having a desk job in the same department in Melbourne.

Sure is a good and sensible way of getting top flight researchers that are the basis of the breeding of the plants that feed and will continue to feed the world of tomorrow.[ /sarc ]

Bureaucratic short sightedness and stupidity again at it's best.
Posted by: GDL

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 01/01/2013 21:25

As always Rom your thoughts are on the mark,the next 20 years will be an interesting time, not sure if our pollies are up to it only time will tell. ......GDL
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 14:53

Time certainly will tell and it will certainly be interesting to see where agriculture goes in the coming years.

As part of a bit life review, my partner and I have taken a closer look at our lifestyles as far as work, exercise and now diet goes. We consider this to be a bit of an investment in our health for the future. So thanks to our reasonable diets, plus the exercise we've been doing ok so far. Before Christmas, a few of the people that we train with plus our coaches were kicking around the idea of going onto a specific eating regime as it's a handy way to shed a few extra kgs. The really interesting thing is that people who have completed the regime consistently talk of feeling better within themselves, have more energy and report things like their skin improving.

So what does this have to do with food production? Well, the theory behind this regime is that a lot of the health issues that we see in society today are being brought on by our current diets. In a nutshell, our diets have evolved much faster than our bodies thanks to the wonders of modern agriculture and now our bodies are in serious catchup mode. This 'new' regime basically stipulates that food be eaten in its most basic of forms, or in other words, wind back the clock to what we would've eaten in the caves thousands of years ago.

To this end, things like grain & dairy are out as these two things popped onto the scene reasonably late in the evolutionary piece. There is a significant proportion of the population that has milk or dairy sensitivities, humans are the only species in nature that continue to ingest dairy after they have been weaned. Milk consumption has always been encouraged because it 'encourages healthy bones' but there is a fair body of research that indicates that the calcium contained within milk cannot be absorbed sufficiently and there are better sources to be had.

The grains are where things get really interesting. I've been really surprised by the growing number of people that I know that are all subscribing to the gluten intolerance thing. To be honest I thought it was all a bit of boloney and the perceived benefits from eliminating wheat from the diet maybe more mental than physical, ie. the placebo affect. Now having delved into it a bit more I'm coming round to the idea that there maybe something to it. I think the below quote sums it up the most concisely:
Originally Posted By: Grains, Legumes and Dairy
Grains and legumes contain lectins. Lectins are a class of proteins found in many types of seeds (like wheat, oats, barley, rice, peanuts, soy, etc.) that are part of the plant’s natural defense mechanism. A digested seed is not one that can grow a new plant. To defend itself, the seed from these plants either deter predators (like us) from eating them by making us sick or resist digestion completely or both. The grains and legumes that have become a part of the human diet since the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago aren’t toxic enough to make most of us severely ill immediately after eating them (otherwise humans never would have domesticated them!). Instead, their effects are more subtle and can take years to manifest as a life-threatening disease.


I think if the paleo style of eating catches on it could mean a real shakeup for agriculture, especially considering the proportion of carbohydrates and energy that are currently provided by grains and sugars. The greenies certainly won't like it considering it runs in complete contradiction to many of the alternative philosophies they espouse particularly in the area of protein sources. I have my doubts about paleo becoming really mainstream though, the amount of time that goes into food preparation is quite a lot more than just grabbing a bowl of cereal, splashing in some milk and away you go. Then again, who knows, we may or may not have a choice as to whether to adapt to an old food regime because governments are already screaming about just how much funding they are having to find to prop up health systems that are straining under the load of what really amount to in the majority, preventable diseases brought on by excess consumption of food.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 21:03

I look at all these supposed modern ills and intolerance's of certain foods in a different way.
Where I am coming from is the questions raised as to why my generation was quite a lot taller and bigger than my father's generation.

[ I am 74.5 years old and was 5'11 1/2" [182 cm's] in my prime in my mid 30's to mid 40's and am now shrinking at the usual 1" every decade after, for me, about 60 years old. The years vary between individuals when that older age shrinking trend starts.
My nursing daughter in Darwin tells me she can spot a smoker and even only moderate drinker from quite some distance as it starts to show by about 50 years old.
As I don't smoke and drink very little, by choice since I was a kid and youth and couldn't understand what my peers got out of getting drunk and losing control of themselves. ]

Then my son now in his early 40's is quite a lot taller and heavier than me.
His son, my grandson is 15 and about the same height and size as his father, about 190 cms.
Another grandson is the same height and size as myself.

Most young guys and some of the girls of my son's and grandsons generations are taller than myself at my prime let alone how much taller and bigger they are when compared to their grand parents and great grand parents.

If the many afflictions that are now supposed to be due to those foods we now eat, particularly the processed foods that are supposedly the evil that is causing all these afflictions and those kids have been eating that sort of food most of their short lives, why are most of them now so much taller, bigger and stronger than the generations before them?
And i might add from my observations in my youth, healthier at the same ages than my generation born around the end of the 1930's.
And it is not more protein as those old farm guys lived on meat yet were still a lot smaller in general than the new generations .

[ I don't eat McDonalds, rarely KFC and hardly any other takeaways with even Pizza a rare feed these days. They are just too damn expensive for an old couple on a pension which I never wanted to be on but that's life, so we lump it!

I can still and intend to in the next few minutes, get out and walk my usual 3 to 4 kms each evening averaging under 11.5 minutes per kilometre. ]

The larger human frame is a world wide phenomena as the sail plane / glider manufacturers mostly based in Germany have found that they now have to increase the close fitting cockpit sizes on gliders to accommodate the larger human frames of the latest generations compared to those of the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

So the question I ask and mull on, is it really the food that we eat and which we are blaming for our apparent susceptibility to all sorts of modern ills and supposed health problems and sensitivities and intolerance's and allergies to some food types ?

Or are all those apparent ills and sensitivities and allergies a manifestation, a secondary effect of something else that is happening in the way we live or very subtly affecting us individually or even acting across our entire society?

As I continue to observe those around me as well as try to analyse my own particular health and personal frailties I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the role of viruses in human health is grossly underestimated.
As well the sheer numbers of viruses and the subtleties of their actions on the human body and health and mental capabilities is again very seriously underestimated by health researchers and health professionals.
It is not the blatant effect from some viral infection I am thinking about although those effects can be quite traumatic and even life changing as I have personally experienced, but it is the very, very subtle and apparently innocuous infection, not just colds and flu's and other similar viral infections, that can create long lasting changes in a person's ability to digest and absorb and deal with all the vast range of compounds found in every type of food.

Just two examples out of many that have affected me personally and brought me to this belief and understanding of the role of viruses in human health. My first inkling that viral infections were not just colds and flu's was getting up one morning when I was in my late 20's and finding i had excruciating pain across the muscles in my lower back.
I had gone to bed with no signs of anything amiss and certainly had not strained my back even though I am or was a farmer often lifting and moving heavy loads.
The pain started to recede after a couple of days and within a week was basically gone. The interesting thing was that my ability to lift and shift things barely changed and this got me thinking.
Now of course it is well known that muscle viral infections can create all sorts of mayhem and some serious pain, another bout of which I have just had across the shoulders moving in roughly a band down the arm to the fingertips over about a month.

The other episode which has really convinced me about the role that viruses play in human health happened some half dozen years ago.
Went to bed quite OK and then woke up and lay there thinking, I think I am going to vomit, a very, very rare occurrence for me.
I made it to the basin with a second to spare and then spent considerable time on the toilet while the other end did it's bit.
Then followed about 4 days of nauseating stomach pains, vast volumes of wind burping up and fast runs to the toilet.
Laying only on my left hand side to allow the gases to burp up and not vomit which the structure of the stomach allows one to do.

Previous to this my dear mother use to call me asbestos guts as I could eat anything and not have problems but following this episode I became nauseous on a continuous basis for the following couple of years and nothing the Docs could provide seemed to fix it.
I just had this continuous nauseating lead ball sitting under my diaphragm all the time and often just felt like vomiting.
Finally after a very bad bout of this I started to wonder why that feeling changed quite often from barely felt to a crippling hunched over pain.
A feed of some tasty asian tucker in Darwin really set me off as I finally realised it might be the food I was eating that created the problem so I did some reading on the Food Intolerance Network > factsheets.

Then the penny dropped,
The bread and other manufacturers of bread based products used to and some still do, put a naturally occurring anti mold chemical into their bread products to enable it to keep longer, particularly when it is enclosed in those plastic coverings.
And I loved my bread as I also loved my cheeses which are loaded with this natural chemical.

This naturally occurring chemical "[ E282] Calcium propionate" is also found in cheeses which i realised then were also giving me serious grief whenever I ate cheese.

The thing was that until that stomach upset, I had never ever had any problems in eating bread of any type or likewise with cheese. Bread and cheese eating stopped and within two weeks my nauseous symptoms had completely disappeared, at least until I experimented and got into some bread with the calcium proponiate additive and some cheese.
Bread without the additive is no problem and many manufacturers are now baking bread without many of these additives.

Well almost none because from that point eating bread or any similar grain based food mean't a very rapid weight increase as in adding half a kilogram over night something that again had never happened to me anytime previously.
And that new and unfortunate ability to rapidly add weight despite a lot of exercise is another viral induced affliction I am starting to think.

There are many more personal instances that i could recount where I now firmly believe that Viral infections have altered my body chemistry and even my physical abilities and performances quite significantly and sometimes in ways that are not very nice.
Nor is the brain immune to some very subtle viral infections with consequent mental changes.

There is a growing awareness in medical research on the role of viruses in the human health and mental standings of individuals and the question to ask is. why are these problems only appearing now .

I would suggest that it is the role of the recent human mobility, something that is only some 30 years old, in the transmitting of formerly localised viruses which were permanently in possibly relatively immune to the local viruses populations but which are rapidly spread across the susceptible global population through large numbers of people now travelling the world.

The poster child for this was the truly traumatic effect on the Australian aboriginal populations and the devastating death toll arising from the transmission of cold and other viruses when the first whites arrived and settled .

Another instance which won the Nobel prize for medicine and rightfully so was the persistence of the WA Dr's Barry Marshall and Dr Robin Warren in identifying and then persisting against strident opposition that "the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease"
A bacterium yes in this case but indicative of the role of that parasitic viral infections and bacterium plays in human health.

Simply put I now believe that many / most of the food allergies and most of the physical health problems we seem to be now facing in this modern world such as arthritis and all it's derivatives plus so many other ills that plague mankind are all triggered or are initiated by unnoticed and apparently innocuous viral and bacterial infections often from maybe many years or decades ago.

Those allergies and sensitivities are just the flow on effects of those long term and often previously latent viral infections.

Two items here , one of which I read only a few days ago but can't find now.
Health scientists are now experimenting or more so, actually using the fecal matter taken from a person prior to a major antibiotic dosage and then feeding that cleaned fecal matter back some time later to the person to re-establish the persons gut flora and fauna .

In some cases they are now using donor fecal matter to deliberately change a persons gut flora and fauna to overcome those very problems I have outlined above.
In my case my flora and fauna have definitely been changed for the worse by the prostate cancer radiation treatment of a couple of years ago and thats where one's own fecal matter taken before the radiation can be used to re-establish the old regime in the guts.

And is the increasing incidence of prostate cancer due to some obscure viral infection, maybe twenty , thirty or more years ago?
I suspect so as just too many of my country compatriots also are finding they have prostate cancer also and there is ongoing research for a viral initiator

The second article can be found in Science Daily and the subject is the nonovirus type that created my intolerance and sensitivities to Calcium Propionates.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8bu05n-us-norovirus/

If you have got this far, thank you
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 22:43

ROM, cheers for your thoughts and confirming a bit of a theory of mine. I've been wondering for a while whether certain preservatives as well as different treatments could also be drawing out increased numbers of people with food sensitivities. Your thoughts on viruses are also very interesting and I do think warrant further thought and examination.

From my understanding you are absolutely right in your thinking that viruses have the ability to change certain body functions and its also more than possible that a virus infection at the same time as eating particular foods could bring on specific sensitivities.

I will say this about grains though. We only feed cattle on grain for around 90 days because after that, their digestive systems are stuffed. Race horses are in a similar boat as they rely on the concentrations of energy within grain to fuel their muscles whilst training and racing, but due to the amounts they are fed, regular spelling is required to let their digestive systems recover from ulcers.

As with anything in nature, looking at things in isolation usually only tells a part of the story. Only after inspecting the labels on my foods more closely am I now coming to a realisation about how certain ingredients have permeated our diet. I think the biggest issue however is how some claims on food are completely oversimplified. Take a 'lite' yoghurt for instance, people eat them because they're not meant to be as fattening, but if you look at the sugar content, it's usually substantially higher. So perhaps one is ultimately swapping clogged arteries for diabetes??

I think at the end of the day though, genetic variations that exist between different people combined with the different genetics that one ingests on a daily basis whether it be grains, meat or dairy could mean that ultimately isolating some of these triggers will be incredibly difficult.

It's an interesting area of discussion smile
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 22:44

Double post
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 22:47


Some quite more interesting thinking there to digest over time Andy. Thanks.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/01/2013 23:07

And there is not a shadow of doubt that individual genetic characteristics drive some of these susceptibilities as well as susceptibilities to possible viral vectors both nasty and some actually very beneficial but the beneficial ones are damn hard to sort out from the noise as we see all viruses as being harmful.

Our entire physical form started out as merely a whole diverse collection of highly specialised cells, originally single celled bacteria that through evolutionary processes got around to sorting out who would do what in the competitive enterprise we call our body and brain.

Viruses of every way out genetic hot mix got all mixed up in there somewhere and contributed to the sorting out and setting up of the genetic code that drives all life on this planet.
And viruses and bacteria are still getting involved in the code of life and incorporating their genetic material into ours and all other life form's genetic systems.
They do this every time we get a viral infection and then develop a level of immunity to that infection as their viral genetic code is recognised by our immune system but viruses, HIV is the classic in modern times and the Black Death is another always leave genetic debris in the human gene set as well as changes to the gene set which will make it easier to identify those particular viral invasions again.
It's called immunity and it is an alteration to the life form's genetic base.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/01/2013 23:42

On the 27/ 12 / 2012 I posted an article by Matt Ridley in the Wall street Journal on the probability that with the continuing increases in output of farm products per hectarage over the last half dozen decades there might soon be a situation where not all the farmland the world's farmers are currently using might be required to feed the world's growing population.

The paper on which Matt Ridley based his WSJ article can be found here and should be read by everybody who may have an interest in our global food supplies of the future and thats ALL of us ;

Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Land Sparing

Judith Curry, a proffessor of the very climate and technically orientated "Climate etc" blog has quite a long post on author and formerly radical green / environmentalist , Mark Lynas' conversion from a radical green to a far more pragmatic outlook on farming, chemicals, GMO's in particular and the global food outlook and etc.

When very influential people like Professor Curry start to look at other items such as Mark Lynas's "Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013" instead of just global warming / climate change science, you know the end is near for the global warming ideology.

When influential people like Professor Curry start looking at farming and agriculture and run articles that call into serious question the whole anti farming, anti GMO and anti rural beliefs and attitudes of the Greens you know also that the Green anti farming and anti food production ideology of the Greens is also now coming under severe and increasing scrutiny and the continuing Green's and radical environmentalists despicable attitudes to rural affairs and rural people is now becoming a very questionable ideology for the Greens to continue with in an increasing number of quite influential sections of our society.

This may just possibly be a harbinger of the decay and ultimate downfall of the radical greens and environmentalists and their radical ideological based strangle hold over so much of our society.

Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the "School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences" at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). She received a Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.

I have copy and pasted Mark Lynas' very quite eye opening and long address below but Judith Curry's final comments on Mark Lynas' article follows first;

Quote:
]JC comments: What with peak farmland and GM foods, hopefully there will be sufficient food to support all that obesity that is going around. ( JC removes tongue from cheek )

Of the ‘big three’: food, water and energy, it seems like our understanding of the future of food is on a firmer basis. Biofuel and GM are the policy wild cards here.

If you haven’t read it yet, read Mark Lynas’ essay. If you’ve already read it, read it again. It raises many important points regarding environmentalism, and his personal saga through all this is very enlightening, not to mention courageous.


Mark Lynas' essay "Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013" taken from his web site and as addressed to the Oxford Farming Conference.

>>I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

For me this anti-science environmentalism became increasingly inconsistent with my pro-science environmentalism with regard to climate change. I published my first book on global warming in 2004, and I was determined to make it scientifically credible rather than just a collection of anecdotes.

So I had to back up the story of my trip to Alaska with satellite data on sea ice, and I had to justify my pictures of disappearing glaciers in the Andes with long-term records of mass balance of mountain glaciers. That meant I had to learn how to read scientific papers, understand basic statistics and become literate in very different fields from oceanography to paleoclimate, none of which my degree in politics and modern history helped me with a great deal.

I found myself arguing constantly with people who I considered to be incorrigibly anti-science, because they wouldn’t listen to the climatologists and denied the scientific reality of climate change. So I lectured them about the value of peer-review, about the importance of scientific consensus and how the only facts that mattered were the ones published in the most distinguished scholarly journals.

My second climate book, Six Degrees, was so sciency that it even won the Royal Society science books prize, and climate scientists I had become friendly with would joke that I knew more about the subject than them. And yet, incredibly, at this time in 2008 I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science even at this late stage.

Obviously this contradiction was untenable. What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

But this was still only the beginning. So in my third book The God Species I junked all the environmentalist orthodoxy at the outset and tried to look at the bigger picture on a planetary scale.

And this is the challenge that faces us today: we are going to have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully much less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertiliser, water and pesticides and in the context of a rapidly-changing climate.

Let’s unpack this a bit. I know in a previous year’s lecture in this conference there was the topic of population growth. This area too is beset by myths. People think that high rates of fertility in the developing world are the big issue – in other words, poor people are having too many children, and we therefore need either family planning or even something drastic like mass one-child policies.

The reality is that global average fertility is down to about 2.5 – and if you consider that natural replacement is 2.2, this figure is not much above that. So where is the massive population growth coming from? It is coming because of declining infant mortality – more of today’s youngsters are growing up to have their own children rather than dying of preventable diseases in early childhood.

The rapid decline in infant mortality rates is one of the best news stories of our decade and the heartland of this great success story is sub-Saharan Africa. It’s not that there are legions more children being born – in fact, in the words of Hans Rosling, we are already at ‘peak child’. That is, about 2 billion children are alive today, and there will never be more than that because of declining fertility.

But so many more of these 2 billion children will survive into adulthood today to have their own children. They are the parents of the young adults of 2050. That’s the source of the 9.5 billion population projection for 2050. You don’t have to have lost a child, God forbid, or even be a parent, to know that declining infant mortality is a good thing.

So how much food will all these people need? According to the latest projections, published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we are looking at a global demand increase of well over 100% by mid-century. This is almost entirely down to GDP growth, especially in developing countries.

In other words, we need to produce more food not just to keep up with population but because poverty is gradually being eradicated, along with the widespread malnutrition that still today means close to 800 million people go to bed hungry each night. And I would challenge anyone in a rich country to say that this GDP growth in poor countries is a bad thing.

But as a result of this growth we have very serious environmental challenges to tackle. Land conversion is a large source of greenhouse gases, and perhaps the greatest source of biodiversity loss. This is another reason why intensification is essential – we have to grow more on limited land in order to save the rainforests and remaining natural habitats from the plough.

We also have to deal with limited water – not just depleting aquifers but also droughts that are expected to strike with increasing intensity in the agricultural heartlands of continents thanks to climate change. If we take more water from rivers we accelerate biodiversity loss in these fragile habitats.

We also need to better manage nitrogen use: artificial fertiliser is essential to feed humanity, but its inefficient use means dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and many coastal areas around the world, as well as eutrophication in fresh water ecosystems.

It is not enough to sit back and hope that technological innovation will solve our problems. We have to be much more activist and strategic than that. We have to ensure that technological innovation moves much more rapidly, and in the right direction for those who most need it.

In a sense we’ve been here before. When Paul Ehrlich published the Population Bomb in 1968, he wrote: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” The advice was explicit – in basket-case countries like India, people might as well starve sooner rather than later, and therefore food aid to them should be eliminated to reduce population growth.

It was not pre-ordained that Ehrlich would be wrong. In fact, if everyone had heeded his advice hundreds of millions of people might well have died needlessly. But in the event, malnutrition was cut dramatically, and India became food self-sufficient, thanks to Norman Borlaug and his Green Revolution.

It is important to recall that Borlaug was equally as worried about population growth as Ehrlich. He just thought it was worth trying to do something about it. He was a pragmatist because he believed in doing what was possible, but he was also an idealist because he believed that people everywhere deserved to have enough to eat.

So what did Norman Borlaug do? He turned to science and technology. Humans are a tool-making species – from clothes to ploughs, technology is primarily what distinguishes us from other apes. And much of this work was focused on the genome of major domesticated crops – if wheat, for example, could be shorter and put more effort into seed-making rather than stalks, then yields would improve and grain loss due to lodging would be minimised.

Before Borlaug died in 2009 he spent many years campaigning against those who for political and ideological reasons oppose modern innovation in agriculture. To quote: “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.”

And, thanks to supposedly environmental campaigns spread from affluent countries, we are perilously close to this position now. Biotechnology has not been stopped, but it has been made prohibitively expensive to all but the very biggest corporations.

It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries. In fact the latest figures I’ve just seen from CropLife suggest it costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialisation, so open-source or public sector biotech really does not stand a chance.

There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about.

In the EU the system is at a standstill, and many GM crops have been waiting a decade or more for approval but are permanently held up by the twisted domestic politics of anti-biotech countries like France and Austria. Around the whole world the regulatory delay has increased to more than 5 and a half years now, from 3.7 years back in 2002. The bureaucratic burden is getting worse.

France, remember, long refused to accept the potato because it was an American import. As one commentator put it recently, Europe is on the verge of becoming a food museum. We well-fed consumers are blinded by romantic nostalgia for the traditional farming of the past. Because we have enough to eat, we can afford to indulge our aesthetic illusions.

But at the same time the growth of yields worldwide has stagnated for many major food crops, as research published only last month by Jonathan Foley and others in the journal Nature Communications showed. If we don’t get yield growth back on track we are indeed going to have trouble keeping up with population growth and resulting demand, and prices will rise as well as more land being converted from nature to agriculture.

To quote Norman Borlaug again: “I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called ‘organic’ methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.”

As Borlaug was saying, perhaps the most pernicious myth of all is that organic production is better, either for people or the environment. The idea that it is healthier has been repeatedly disproved in the scientific literature. We also know from many studies that organic is much less productive, with up to 40-50% lower yields in terms of land area. The Soil Association went to great lengths in a recent report on feeding the world with organic not to mention this productivity gap.

Nor did it mention that overall, if you take into account land displacement effects, organic is also likely worse for biodiversity. Instead they talk about an ideal world where people in the west eat less meat and fewer calories overall so that people in developing countries can have more. This is simplistic nonsense.

If you think about it, the organic movement is at its heart a rejectionist one. It doesn’t accept many modern technologies on principle. Like the Amish in Pennsylvania, who froze their technology with the horse and cart in 1850, the organic movement essentially freezes its technology in somewhere around 1950, and for no better reason.

It doesn’t even apply this idea consistently however. I was reading in a recent Soil Association magazine that it is OK to blast weeds with flamethrowers or fry them with electric currents, but benign herbicides like glyphosate are still a no-no because they are ‘artificial chemicals’.

In reality there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment – quite the opposite in fact. Recent research by Jesse Ausubel and colleagues at Rockefeller University looked at how much extra farmland Indian farmers would have had to cultivate today using the technologies of 1961 to get today’s overall yield. The answer is 65 million hectares, an area the size of France.

In China, maize farmers spared 120 million hectares, an area twice the size of France, thanks to modern technologies getting higher yields. On a global scale, between 1961 and 2010 the area farmed grew by only 12%, whilst kilocalories per person rose from 2200 to 2800. So even with three billion more people, everyone still had more to eat thanks to a production increase of 300% in the same period.

So how much land worldwide was spared in the process thanks to these dramatic yield improvements, for which chemical inputs played a crucial role? The answer is 3 billion hectares, or the equivalent of two South Americas. There would have been no Amazon rainforest left today without this improvement in yields. Nor would there be any tigers in India or orang utans in Indonesia. That is why I don’t know why so many of those opposing the use of technology in agriculture call themselves environmentalists.

So where does this opposition come from? There seems to be a widespread assumption that modern technology equals more risk. Actually there are many very natural and organic ways to face illness and early death, as the debacle with Germany’s organic beansprouts proved in 2011. This was a public health catastrophe, with the same number of deaths and injuries as were caused by Chernobyl, because E.-coli probably from animal manure infected organic beansprout seeds imported from Egypt.

In total 53 people died and 3,500 suffered serious kidney failure. And why were these consumers choosing organic? Because they thought it was safer and healthier, and they were more scared of entirely trivial risks from highly-regulated chemical pesticides and fertilisers.

If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you.

For organic, the naturalistic fallacy is elevated into the central guiding principle for an entire movement. This is irrational and we owe it to the Earth and to our children to do better.

This is not to say that organic farming has nothing to offer – there are many good techniques which have been developed, such as intercropping and companion planting, which can be environmentally very effective, even it they do tend to be highly labour-intensive. Principles of agro-ecology such as recyling nutrients and promoting on-farm diversity should also be taken more seriously everywhere.

But organic is in the way of progress when it refuses to allow innovation. Again using GM as the most obvious example, many third-generation GM crops allow us not to use environmentally-damaging chemicals because the genome of the crop in question has been altered so the plant can protect itself from pests. Why is that not organic?

Organic is also in the way when it is used to take away choice from others. One of the commonest arguments against GM is that organic farmers will be ‘contaminated’ with GM pollen, and therefore no-one should be allowed to use it. So the rights of a well-heeled minority, which come down ultimately to a consumer preference based on aesthetics, trump the rights of everyone else to use improved crops which would benefit the environment.

I am all for a world of diversity, but that means one farming system cannot claim to have a monopoly of virtue and aim at excluding all other options. Why can’t we have peaceful co-existence? This is particularly the case when it shackles us to old technologies which have higher inherent risks than the new.

It seems like almost everyone has to pay homage to ‘organic’ and to question this orthodoxy is unthinkable. Well I am here to question it today.

The biggest risk of all is that we do not take advantage of all sorts of opportunities for innovation because of what is in reality little more than blind prejudice. Let me give you two examples, both regrettably involving Greenpeace.

Last year Greenpeace destroyed a GM wheat crop in Australia, for all the traditional reasons, which I am very familiar with having done it myself. This was publicly funded research carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific Research institute, but no matter. They were against it because it was GM and unnatural.

What few people have since heard is that one of the other trials being undertaken, which Greenpeace activists with their strimmers luckily did not manage to destroy, accidentally found a wheat yield increase of an extraordinary 30%. Just think. This knowledge might never have been produced at all, if Greenpeace had succeeded in destroying this innovation. As the president of the NFU Peter Kendall recently suggeseted, this is analogous to burning books in a library before anyone has been able to read them.

The second example comes from China, where Greenpeace managed to trigger a national media panic by claiming that two dozen children had been used as human guinea pigs in a trial of GM golden rice. They gave no consideration to the fact that this rice is healthier, and could save thousands of children from vitamin A deficiency-related blindness and death each year.

What happened was that the three Chinese scientists named in the Greenpeace press release were publicly hounded and have since lost their jobs, and in an autocratic country like China they are at serious personal risk. Internationally because of over-regulation golden rice has already been on the shelf for over a decade, and thanks to the activities of groups like Greenpeace it may never become available to vitamin-deficient poor people.

This to my mind is immoral and inhumane, depriving the needy of something that would help them and their children because of the aesthetic preferences of rich people far away who are in no danger from Vitamin A shortage. Greenpeace is a $100-million a year multinational, and as such it has moral responsibilities just like any other large company.

The fact that golden rice was developed in the public sector and for public benefit cuts no ice with the antis. Take Rothamsted Research, whose director Maurice Moloney is speaking tomorrow. Last year Rothamsted began a trial of an aphid-resistant GM wheat which would need no pesticides to combat this serious pest.

Because it is GM the antis were determined to destroy it. They failed because of the courage of Professor John Pickett and his team, who took to YouTube and the media to tell the important story of why their research mattered and why it should not be trashed. They gathered thousands of signatures on a petition when the antis could only manage a couple of hundred, and the attempted destruction was a damp squib.

One intruder did manage to scale the fence, however, who turned out to be the perfect stereotypical anti-GM protestor – an old Etonian aristocrat whose colourful past makes our Oxford local Marquess of Blandford look like the model of responsible citizenry.

This high-born activist scattered organic wheat seeds around the trial site in what was presumably a symbolic statement of naturalness. Professor Pickett’s team tell me they had a very low-tech solution to getting rid of it – they went round with a cordless portable hoover to clear it up.

This year, as well as repeating the wheat trial, Rothamsted is working on an omega 3 oilseed that could replace wild fish in food for farmed salmon. So this could help reduce overfishing by allowing land-based feedstocks to be used in aquaculture. Yes it’s GM, so expect the antis to oppose this one too, despite the obvious potential environmental benefits in terms of marine biodiversity.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough. So my conclusion here today is very clear: the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM.

Just as I did 10 years ago, Greenpeace and the Soil Association claim to be guided by consensus science, as on climate change. Yet on GM there is a rock-solid scientific consensus, backed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, health institutes and national science academies around the world. Yet this inconvenient truth is ignored because it conflicts with their ideology.

One final example is the sad story of the GM blight-resistant potato. This was being developed by both the Sainsbury Lab and Teagasc, a publicly-funded institute in Ireland – but the Irish Green Party, whose leader often attends this very conference, was so opposed that they even took out a court case against it.

This is despite the fact that the blight-resistant potato would save farmers from doing 15 fungicide sprays per season, that pollen transfer is not an issue because potatoes are clonally propagated and that the offending gene came from a wild relative of the potato.

There would have been a nice historical resonance to having a blight-resistant potato developed in Ireland, given the million or more who died due to the potato famine in the mid 19th century. It would have been a wonderful thing for Ireland to be the country that defeated blight. But thanks to the Irish Green Party, this is not to be.

And unfortunately the antis now have the bureaucrats on their side. Wales and Scotland are officially GM free, taking medieval superstition as a strategic imperative for devolved governments supposedly guided by science.

It is unfortunately much the same in much of Africa and Asia. India has rejected Bt brinjal, even though it would reduce insecticide applications in the field, and residues on the fruit. The government in India is increasingly in thrall to backward-looking ideologues like Vandana Shiva, who idealise pre-industrial village agriculture despite the historical fact that it was an age of repeated famines and structural insecurity.

In Africa, ‘no GM’ is still the motto for many governments. Kenya for example has actually banned GM foods because of the supposed “health risks” despite the fact that they could help reduce the malnutrition that is still rampant in the country – and malnutrition is by the way a proven health risk, with no further evidence needed. In Kenya if you develop a GM crop which has better nutrition or a higher yield to help poorer farmers then you will go to jail for 10 years.

Thus desperately-needed agricultural innovation is being strangled by a suffocating avalanche of regulations which are not based on any rational scientific assessment of risk. The risk today is not that anyone will be harmed by GM food, but that millions will be harmed by not having enough food, because a vocal minority of people in rich countries want their meals to be what they consider natural.

I hope now things are changing. The wonderful Bill and Melinda Gates foundation recently gave $10 million to the John Innes Centre to begin efforts to integrate nitrogen fixing capabilities into major food crops, starting with maize. Yes, Greenpeace, this will be GM. Get over it. If we are going to reduce the global-scale problem of nitrogen pollution then having major crop plants fixing their own nitrogen is a worthy goal.

I know it is politically incorrect to say all this, but we need a a major dose of both international myth-busting and de-regulation. The plant scientists I know hold their heads in their hands when I talk about this with them because governments and so many people have got their sense of risk so utterly wrong, and are foreclosing a vitally necessary technology.

Norman Borlaug is dead now, but I think we honour his memory and his vision when we refuse to give in to politically correct orthodoxies when we know they are incorrect. The stakes are high. If we continue to get this wrong, the life prospects of billions of people will be harmed.

So I challenge all of you today to question your beliefs in this area and to see whether they stand up to rational examination. Always ask for evidence, as the campaigning group Sense About Science advises, and make sure you go beyond the self-referential reports of campaigning NGOs.

But most important of all, farmers should be free to choose what kind of technologies they want to adopt. If you think the old ways are the best, that’s fine. You have that right.

What you don’t have the right to do is to stand in the way of others who hope and strive for ways of doing things differently, and hopefully better. Farmers who understand the pressures of a growing population and a warming world. Who understand that yields per hectare are the most important environmental metric. And who understand that technology never stops developing, and that even the fridge and the humble potato were new and scary once.

So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably.
[end]
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/01/2013 10:59

A picture says a 1000 words.....




At this point in time there is more than enough food being produced, there is currently enough food produced on this planet to feed a population of 8 billion + people without doing anything else... now that is something to think about.

If people did not have such an "obsession" with everything being "perfect" there would be more than enough food to go around to feed the "hungry" but no everyone in there own selfish way has to have perfect apples without spots or a perfectly shaped apple or a perfectly shaped orange heavens forbid if it has a strange bump on it.
Billions of tonnes of perfectly good fresh food is wasted every single year because it in not perfect and "is not what the customer wants"
well in the end we then all pay more at the supermarket because somebody has to pay for all the wastage so it all gets added on to the bottom of your shopping docket, now if everyone was not so fussy the price of fresh food would come down and there would be also more food to go around.... although it is a funny thing to say that "the world is starving when there is an obesity epidemic? hmmm go figure?

Personally i would rather eat fresh produce straight from my own garden, pesticide and chemical free and no GM contaminents and the best part... it actually tastes how real food is supposed to taste not like the bland dry floury tasteless "fresh food" people have been conditioned to eat from the supermarket
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/01/2013 08:31

Well for a start YS...... Billions of tonnes? Lets get back to reality here.

There is a lot of food being produced that either does not get consumed or it gets consumed by people who don't actually need it.

So what is your suggestion to fix this problem? Meter out food to everyone?

How will the food that is being wasted be transported to the people who need it? The picture you posted, while you are correct, it is a waste how would that be transported to people starving quickly enough to allow it to be consumed before it rots? If you would take notice of that photo, all of it is perishable food that after harvest, unless cool stored, it spoils in a day or two.

Who would store all of this otherwise wasted food? Of course this storage costs money, so there is your kicker, who would pay for it to be stored? Food production is a business, like it or not the people who produce the food NEED to make money producing food or they will stop doing it. The waste you pictured is from resellers. Yes people demand quality from people who produce it. If they didn't, you would be eating crap. Farmers need direction from consumers on what and to what quality to produce. Once again if they didn't get direction, you would eat what they wanted to produce not what you like.

Unfortunately a lot of the people in most need for this wasted food don't live anywhere near where it is produced. They can't afford to get the food delivered to them and the cost of getting the food to them is worth more than the food.

If the money required to getthis excess food out to where it is needed was funded by govt, where would it come from? Could we take the funding from the arts? What about taking money from other areas like research into climate or from national parks?

Every area you take a large amount of money from will cry blue murder about it. I for one would gladly give up my tax dollars that would have been spent on some crap sculpture which only the "enlightened " can understand in order to feed people. But there would be plenty that would not.

It seems that one of the biggest areas earmarked for govt cutbacks is agricultural research. I know why too. Farmers are thin on the ground now so the noise we make is barely heard compared to city dominated areas.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/01/2013 18:30

There is billions of tonnes of food that is being wasted and a vast proportion of that is before it has even reached the consumer! so the transport and storage needs would not change at all...

I have seen on a first hand basis just how wasteful people are because the fruit/veg is not perfect!
we used to get "seconds" bananas from 1 farm to feed to our chooks and quite frankly there was nothing wrong with the banana's they were either to big ,too small or had marks on the skin (and who eats the skin?) so out they go and as the farmer stated they just simply cannot sell them because the consumer does not want them!(or they have been conditioned not to want them)
I watched one guy de-handing a bunch of banana's and he stood there looked at them then got this little gauge to measure them, they were slightly to big so in the bin the went....and all of these "perfectly good" banana's get dumped in the paddock.So basically 35% of a bunch of bananas is wasted and a banana farm can process anything upto 200+ bunches a day that equals alot of wastage in my book and this is only from one farm on one day.

The same can be said for woolies we also used to get "scraps" from them to feed to our animals and on average we would get 10 x 60ltr bins of fresh produce every 3 days and what was wrong with the produce you may ask? well nothing! again some had marks some was stock that was left from the last weeks batch, but most of it was because the produce did not meet the "standard of the consumer" so out it goes.
The store manager told us that they cannot return it back to the supplier as they do not want it, so it then gets dumped in landfill (or we feed it to our animals).

Add it all up... Woolies 600+ltrs of food wasted every few days just because it does not meet the standard....
Coles? probably the same... IGA...same? what about all the other supermarkets?
Then there are also the likes suppliers and wholesalers that reject food for similar reasons so that equals more wastage.
So if you multiply all that wasted perfectly good produce by all of the Wollies,coles, IGA and other supermarkets right around Australia you can see that adds up to a lot of wasted perfectly fresh health food!
now you tell me there is a food shortage? people just need to open their eyes and stop being so blind to only wanting "perfectly proportioned foods" if
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/01/2013 20:19

YS agree totally..... But I would say that the supermarket would not even allow the customers to see that food. It would be outed behind the scenes. Funny thing is that we are all paying for that food in the prices they charge for the rest of it! Woolworths are not buying the breed of sheep that I produce. They say the reason is because of consumer feedback but how can they tell what breed it is when it hasn't even got skin! I suspect market collusion is the reason in an effort to drive prices down in the meat price "war" they are having. Has the price of lamb reduce by about 30% over the last six months? If not, ask you supermarket why! The market price for lamb has fallen by at least that since August. This price war they are having just so happened to come at the same time as a huge glut in supply was about to hit the markets because of several factors on the producers end. Huge numbers of lambs being sold to processors meant prices went through the floor and are taking a long time to recover.

All the while consumers in cities think that the supermarkets are doing a wonderful job trying to reduce the cost of lamb to help them. Just ask the supermarket butcher how much money the farmer is getting for that lamb of the shelf. If he says anything more than $3.60/KG call him a liar and buy your meat from a local butcher. At least they are trying to keep a small business going.

Just for the record today's markets

Beef around $1.60kg
Lamb around $3.50kg
Posted by: Vinnie

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/01/2013 21:57

Saw an interesting tv show on SBS called Food Inc.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Inc
Posted by: Crookhaven River

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 15/01/2013 09:59

FOOD Inc video here.


http://vimeo.com/41266696
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/01/2013 16:17

There was a story on A current affair late last year where farmers are basically dumping their entire crops back into their paddock because it is either not worth their while to sell it (as coles and Woolies expects farmers to sell their produce at below the cost of production so Coles and Woolies can bump up their profits.)
Or the farmer simply cannot sell the produce....seems everyone thinks that China is going to supply them with everything including food....
Posted by: EFujita5

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/01/2013 21:25

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
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/02/2013 11:26

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
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/03/2013 10:13

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
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/03/2013 14:59

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/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/03/2013 15:36

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
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/03/2013 16:14

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?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/03/2013 10:45

Funny thing is since the introduction of GM crops glyphosate use skyrocketed...
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/03/2013 16:13

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.
Posted by: tweedledee

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/03/2013 22:50

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.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 12:56

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.

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 13:29

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.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 13:57

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!
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 15:16

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...


Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 16:17

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.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 16:48

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.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 17:21

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.
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 17:31

@_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!
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 17:37

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?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 18:01

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!
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 18:14

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 ...
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 19:09

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
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! 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? ;

Hmm! Now that comment is really all completely arse about.

Having been involved with a major and public / government owned plant breeding and agricultural research organisation for some 28 years directly you really should do your homework before making another of those types of comments YS.

There is an international network of only a dozen or so global seed banks, one of which is already located here in Horsham and is to be expanded and a new unit built to store the world's plant seeds from which ALL of mankind's food is bred from and comes from.

That network of world wide seed banks all work together so that when a plant breeder somewhere in the world wants to breed resistance into wheat, for instance to give the new wheat variety resistance to the ever mutating and perhaps a new and very potent rust bio-type then he looks up the specifications of the type of resistance he wants, where it might be found in what plant variety and where seeds for his selection are stored around the world .

He / She then sends a mail to the curator of that unit and in a few days he will get one two or three seeds which he will grow in the experimental and sealed glass houses, the pollen from which his assistants who are all young women as they are far superior to males in this, will transfer pollen across to the stigmata of the plants used in the crossing and new seeds with the hopefully genetic traits incorporating the resistance to the new rust biotype now in their genetic makeup will be grown out and the seeds from these dozen or so glass house plants collected.

They are then planted out in the field for selection and over the next four or five years of plantings of increasing numbers of seeds each year the plant breeder walks those perhaps 15,000 plants every few days and just pulls up any plants that do not meet his criteria or show evidence of rust or are not suitable for harvesting technology. Each season all the seeds of the remaining plants are kept, each plant separately and tests are done on baking quality, baking time , retention of freshness, protein content , flour making qualities and etc using s as ample of seeds from that plant. If that plants quality parameters don't met specifications then some seeds may be kept for future plant breeding crosses but it is discarded.
Something like 47 different criteria have to be met in bread wheat just for flour, dough, quality and baking qualities and that's before the harvesting, ability, disease resistance, water and temperature requirements, standing characteristics , harvesting characteristics and a number of other criteria are met .

Usually just one seed / one plant out to those perhaps 30,000 or more plants grown over those 4 or 5 years will make it through and even then it may not be success with the farmers after another 6 years or more of bulking up the seed stock so it can be released as a new variety to the farmers.

In those seed storage units are also the stored samples of seeds from the wild plants from which our crops that feed so much of the world all are cross bred from.

Those wild grasses totally unsuited to any sort of bread making or anything else have genes in them that have been naturally selected over millions of years to give perhaps some characteristic to the plant such as insect resistance to one species of insect , a trait that can be used by crossing into our bread and pasta and starch wheats or other grass type crops .
Those seeds, perhaps no more than 3 or 4 in some cases are all that the collectors in their trips across the grasslands of central Asia where grass orginated have been available to find because those grass lands and those often very unique and tiny areas of a very specific and often unknown species of grass is all that is left.

The Wheat for instance from which all our breads, pastas, starch and an amazing number of other products is made from came from two natural crosses between three wild grasses probably around ten thousand years ago.

Then mankind domesticated those wild wheat types and steadily selected it until he got varieties that suited him across all the planet's range of environments to fill his needs .

With plant breeding now including genes from those early wild grasses and from varieties being grown in nearly every nation on earth all interchanged between breeders even when countries are technically at war such as Israel and the Arab countries , the future of food supplies is far too important for the breeders to get involved in such conflicts and they and their political masters find ways around such difficulties, the wheats and the breads you eat are far, far more removed from the original bread wheats than you can ever imagine and the changes and differences will continue on as new diseases and disease mutations continue as ever to affect those vast fields of grain as they always will.
It is a non stop war between crop breeders of every type and nature's constant experimenting with new mutations and disease transformations that challenge our ability to feed mankind in ways that will ensure that no member of the human race need go hungry as far as the plant breeders and the farmers of this world are concerned.

In the Middle Ages one bushel of wheat [ 35 ltrs ] when sown was expected to give a yield of two bushels or double it's sowing rate.
Today we expect here in SE Australia that every tonne of wheat sown will return around, depending on seasons, some 40 up tp 60 or so tonnes of grain.

And that is why we can still feed the world and will continue to do so if the plant breeders and the farmers of this world are not deliberately crippled by the stupidity of the ignorant.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 19:12

Originally Posted By: explorer
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 .


Huh! Have you ANY idea on where your food actually comes from and have you ANY idea at all on how it is produced ?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 19:52

rom.

it is not as arse about as you may think...

And there is a difference between "plant breeding" and genetic modification....
But let's face it unless everybody thinks the same way as you do then you are a "luddite" "whacko" "hippy" and all those other little words that are used for non conformist's.....

If everyone on this planet thought the same way that you did the place would be pretty boring and there would not be much hope for the future.
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 20:29

Well, I think I have an idea at least where some of my food comes from: I milk my own goats, grow my own veggies, fruit and herbs,eat our own eggs from our own chooks and ducks and get our own honey from our honey bees ... Not entirely self sufficient, but slowly getting there ... I may not have the answers for everything, but I do know that a world dependent on chemicals is not sustainable .... got to be blind not to see that by now ...
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/03/2013 21:34

Ok explorer, I apologise and take that back on your not knowing where your food comes from.

Unfortunately for as far as we can see into the future chemicals of some sort will ,be used in actual food production.
A mistake a lot of anti chemical people make is that farmers choose to use chemicals.
They don't.
In fact nearly every farmer I know and i have been one all my life, doesn't like using chemicals let alone paying for them but there are no options if the public are not prepared to pay two or three times or many more times as much for their food as they are currently doing.

If you take the courtesy of reading my first post as as in the quote on the relative prices for grain in times past versus prices farmers get today today, you would see that it is only by producing very large quantities of food that we can even make some sort of living anymore. A hell of a lot of farmers can no longer even do that as witnessed by the first walk off's of farms by farmers in WA's huge eastern grain belt with a lot more to come if reports are correct.

And the low prices for what we produce, well I guess we are just too damn good at what we do and the world has so much food that it can afford to drive it's food producers into bankruptcy. At least until the world runs short of food and then the political bloodletting will begin.
Farming and food production cannot just be switched on and off like a machine in a factory.
It takes years to get a farming system up and running and producing which I suspect that unless there is a marked change in attitude particularly by the Australian public towards their farmers then sometime in the next couple of decades that public could be in for a very rude shock when they realise their Australian farmers are nearly all gone, the land is owned by Arabs, Europeans and Asians [ which is now happening around here and increasing with an informal approach a few years ago from an unnamed national entity to Victorian politicians to buy the entire 30,000 square kilometres of the Wimmera ie; 13% of Victoria, if it was for sale ] and none of the food grown on that land is going to stay in Australia.

Then there will be much lamenting at what was done to Australia's farmers and the stupidity of the shortsightedness of the public and the politicals .
And then Australian's will find themselves buying their own home produced food back at huge markups from the international owners of Australia's food producing land.

And you will have no say in how that food is produced for they will be protected diplomatically by their own home countries because food security as it already is, for many of these Asian nations will be the be all and end all of those nations with burgeoning but fortunately slowing population growth.

It's happened in the cotton country and now it's happening in the grain producing country and you have nobody to blame except yourselves if you one day cannot afford or are able to buy your food anymore.

Others not interested in you will own that food and they will not hand it over lightly.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 09:59

And the side of things most people don't see is just how "safe" these chemicals are.....They are so safe they have to be kept under lock and key



they are so safe that they carry the skull and crossbones symbol (the universal sign for DEATH)




They are so safe that when they are sprayed in a public area where anyone may come in contact with them you have to put up warning signs! (normally you only have to put up warning signs if there is some clear and present danger...)



Yes, please let's spray more of these wonderful substances on all of the food that we consume....



There is one simple solution to world hunger... grow your OWN food!
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 10:02

May the good lord save us from fanatics of every colour, race, creed and belief .
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 10:18

Amen! with the following amendment: ... particularly if they are waving any chemical flags!!!! Good lord protect us from those!!!

...
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 10:29

And try walking into a constantly staffed chemist's dispensary or a hospital dispensary where all those health providing drugs in very small quantities and doses are kept and see how far you get!

Those drugs and chemicals in those dispensaries In quantities only a fraction of the size of the quantity of farm chemicals will kill a person as fast or faster than most farm chemicals.
Of course if those dispensary drugs were just left out in an open shed somewhere and nobody was around for days at a time that would also pass the authorities requirements I don't think.
So it is prudent to lock farm chemicals up just like all other industries that use chemicals,
It is both law and prudent to ensure the protection of workers in all industries that use chemicals by providing safety clothing when they are exposed to those chemicals .

It is a requirement of law for warning signs to be put in place including on those packets of pills you can buy even in the supermarkets.
Deliberately and misleading and untruthful propaganda is one of the hall marks of all fanatical believers in a cause.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 10:32

Originally Posted By: ROM
May the good lord save us from fanatics of every colour, race, creed and belief .

There are none so blind as those that can see,or should i say do not want to see what is in front of them.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 10:50

Originally Posted By: ROM
And try walking into a constantly staffed chemist's dispensary or a hospital dispensary where all those health providing drugs in very small quantities and doses are kept and see how far you get!

Those drugs and chemicals in those dispensaries In quantities only a fraction of the size of the quantity of farm chemicals will kill a person as fast or faster than most farm chemicals.
Of course if those dispensary drugs were just left out in an open shed somewhere and nobody was around for days at a time that would also pass the authorities requirements I don't think.
So it is prudent to lock farm chemicals up just like all other industries that use chemicals,
It is both law and prudent to ensure the protection of workers in all industries that use chemicals by providing safety clothing when they are exposed to those chemicals .

It is a requirement of law for warning signs to be put in place including on those packets of pills you can buy even in the supermarkets.
Deliberately and misleading and untruthful propaganda is one of the hall marks of all fanatical believers in a cause.


Well that is pertinant, you have to protect your farm workers from exposure to "cemical cocktails" yet it is perfectly safe for every human being to ingest them, and it is not just one single chemical either that is sprayed on near or under food it is a multitude.

Yes that is correct you need to have warnings in vitamins because if you take too many you may overdose? on what though? being healthy? now have you honestly ever heard on ONE person dieing from an overdose of vitamins? probably not, chemical exposure?that probably happens everyday somewhere but you would not know about it because that would get swept under the carpet because we would not want the general public to find out about it as they might not like what they hear.


And most of these chemical pills in hospitals would not be needed if there was not such a reliance on chemicals to start with! and everyone on the planet does not need said pills if they lived a healthy lifestyle, but i forgot what would i know i'm just a Luddite, psycho hippie, fanatical,blablahblah or what ever else you can think i am aren't i? grin
Sticks and stones may break my bones but too much chemicals will kill me smirk
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 15:30

Chemicals bad, natural is good.

Yeah right.

Lumping all chemicals as bad and all natural things as good is a generalisation that makes you look pretty silly.
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 15:36

Definitely worth the time. Well researched.

The World According to Monsanto GMO Documentary

Hello my friends, be prepared for some challenging truths and be warned, our governments are being exposed for the puppet pretend democracies they are.... big BUSINESS calls the shots. People .... just in the way of their progress. We can change our fate, if we unify and use the only weapon feasible to beat the global elite ( major share holders in Monsanto) People Power. uploaded by Uploaded by eboyuk on May 18, 2011

There's nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it -- it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs. It's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the "revolving door". One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company's vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto's long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9Wl
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 15:54

The question shouldn't be 'how can we feed the world' rather, how can we help feed our community?.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/03/2013 19:33

Originally Posted By: SBT
Chemicals bad, natural is good.

Yeah right.

Lumping all chemicals as bad and all natural things as good is a generalisation that makes you look pretty silly.




Wow i was expecting more than that smirk

i was expecting your usual rhetoric about how you used to pour round up on your cornflakes and use DDT as talcum powder under your armpits to keep away the jumbo fleas, and sump oil to comb through your hair...back in the 50's and how you are still in perfect health because of it?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 09:50

Originally Posted By: Loopy Radar
The question shouldn't be 'how can we feed the world' rather, how can we help feed our community?.

One of the simplest ways would be to "grow your own", have a a veggie garden, this idea was proved after the war when there was food shortages they launched the idea of "victory gardens" where people simply planted a vegie plot in their own backyard.

These victory gardens supplied over 40% of the nations fresh food and proved to be a great success.
Nowadays everyone is too "time poor" and would rather have someone else grow all of there food for them! which is a real shame as most people would not even know what fresh "home grown" food taste like and it is nothing like the bland cardboard tasting rubbish you buy from the stupor markets.

a veggie plot may not supply all the food you require but it will supply a vast quantity of fresh food for your family and does not take that much time at all, and studies have also shown that gardeners live longer lives (so what could be better than that)
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 11:49

*yawn* Once again the ignorant run rife preaching their unassailable moral high ground stance, not that I have any problem with the principles of eating fresh food, getting plenty of exercise and steering clear of nasty stuff to a large extent. The reality is however, people already aren't willing to sacrifice the time and effort my partner and I put into our food preparation, and I can tell you right now, my partner and I have don't have any time to tend to a vegie garden to the extent that is needed to yield us with a good quantity of produce.

The fact is, pesticides weren't invented by people who then invented a need in order to make money. There was a need any their products filled it. GM crops aren't something that someone thought' hey, 'I'll tweak this, patent that, and make everyone bow down to me'. As was evidenced by a case prosecuted by Monsanto, people obviously find the characteristics of GM crops appealing, they just don't want to pay for it. So in saying that, put your money where your mouth is, release an idea or project to the general populous that you've put some serious money, time and effort into and that you expect that you'll be able to get a return on. Until you've done so, the only thing we can be left to assume of your opinions is that they consist of empty rhetoric sprouted forth by an idealist who chooses to remain ignorant of the way the world works and operates.
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 12:34

... well, well, well ... it is a matter of choice ... you are happy with the status quo, that is fine, keep on relying on whatever you can get from the supermarkets without reading labels and opting for 'good health' options ... I, on the other hand make allocations in my time to make sure that any shopping trips allow me time to read those labels and seek best options ... I am also very happy that there are people out there, even at large scale gardening level and even whole countries with similar mindset ... guess this 'ignorant' sickness or bug must be contagious and spreading faster than some may expect ...

The fact that getting there may take some time yet, it is not being used as an excuse by some people holding the power in their country to keep on trying and regulating accordingly ...

http://gourmetorigins.com/en/content/3243/bhutan-first-country-to-go-totally-organic
I am hoping that some day it will be our country leading by example, but it has to start somewhere and every bit counts ... I do not let the enormity of the task ahead within a global perspective, stop me from doing my bit at my local level and I encourage everyone to do so ... but, if you do not have the time, that is fine too ... keep on doing what is right for you and I will keep on doing what is right for me ... without pointing fingers at one another ... let time be the one doing that at the end ... our health will eventually speak for itself ...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 12:35

Oh i must apologise if i bore you so Andy Double U... but then why are you sitting hear reading the ramblings of a mad man if you have no time for such things?
(yes mad man is a hat that i will wear proudly as individuals are the ones that make the world a more interesting place rather than those that simply follow everyone else around like *lost* sheep and does what everyone else does..))

Yes, that is the catch phrase of today isn't it? "i have no time for....." i'm too time poor...

Why is that? because people want the "lifestyle" they want to buy all of the latest "time saving" gadgets that are supposed to make their lives SO... much better but do they? no they don't people are more "time poor" than ever!
Again why is that? because people are so busy working to pay for all of these gadgets that will be simply "chucked out" because oohhh the latest model has come out! oooohhhhhh i just have to have it!!!! crazy crazy smirk (never mind the fact that the old one still functions perfectly) so i will just buy the new model because everyone else will get one and i will just wack it on the credit card and pay for that later... or do a bit more overtime to pay for it, hmm wont have time to d anything this week because i am too busy working....

Funny thing is people want a "lifestyle" but they are basically killing themselves in the process,(and spending more and more time at work away from their family) and before they know it their lives will have passed them by, their children will have all grown up and left home......

i also agree with your comments 100% explorer.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 13:43

Interesting that somebody like YS who demands to live his own particular brand of life style is now denigrating the lifestyle of anybody else who wants to or lives a different way of life to his.

Meanwhile instead of being parasitical on society those others of our citizens are providing the power, the water, the transport, the food, the immense numbers of services such as telecommunications and power that allow YS to rant and rave on this forum about chemicals and the other's desires for items other than those he believes in.

Those Home or so called Victory Gardens in Britain during WW2 on which so much effort was expended on, despite immense efforts by the authorities, supplied less than half the food needs of the British.
In December 1940 Britain was only a few weeks away from starvation until the U boats sinking of so many ships in the Atlantic were finally countered and the Food imports from the vast farmlands of Canada and the USA rose again to a level that kept the British population from hunger and ultimately starvation.

And all of that was with a global population of just some 3 billions.

Nothing has changed.
With well over half of the mankind's 7 billion plus numbers now living in cities of over 100,000 plus, the only way these people can be and will be fed is by the immense production of the global farm lands and world's farmers.

Farmers and farming on a huge scale using all of modern technology and without a great expansion of farm land since the end of WW2 is still the only means of supplying enough food for all of earth's peoples and will remain the only means that will continue to keep mankind from hunger and starvation.

To believe that everybody is willing to and will grow back yard vegies in some non existent plots in the cities is irrational .
To believe that some backyard vegie patches are going to feed mankind's numbers is utterly irrational and just pissing into the wind.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 13:55

The only reason I am alive today is because of the use of some of the very chemicals that you whinge about now.

That plus vaccinations which helped wipe out some very deadly diseases which I grew up with.

Something that no matter what quantity or quality of organic and natural foods you eat will ever protect you from things like polio, malaria, mumps, diptheria, whopping cough, measles, etc.

They kept our parents, grand parents and great grand parents healthy and alive long enough to have children. You seem to have forgotten that in the beginning every chemcial like DDT was hailed as "Cutting Edge" and the "Saviour of mankind" that could "Free us from diseases" and that it was it's overuse by people that ended up causing the problems.
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 14:08

Do not assume what I forgot or remember, I do not dream of doing that for you ... I am just against those chemicals to be used in our food and environment when there are eco=friendly, natural alternatives available. Vaccination, chemotherapy, prescription drugs, etc it is another topic, probably not for the realm of this forum, but since you brought them up, I may mention that I try to avoid them all as much as I can, for myself and my animals too and we are all thriving, thank you very much ... always trying for more natural alternatives ... I believe in progress and development that works with nature ... nothing wrong with working / experimenting in labs, as long as the resulting applications do not forget to ask the crucial question: how will this affect us in the long term? and not just use the unfortunately so common short sighted $$$ driven view of getting results here and now and at any cost ....
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 15:01

I’m not a 100 % crackpot (only 99.99% grin )

I have lived life on both sides of the coin being the typical consumerist junkie buying all the useless tech crap that i didn’t really need, i spent the first 3 years of my kids life driving 700+ ks a week to and from work, spending 2 hours a day in traffic, working for 10-12 hours a day just to make a “living” and did it make me happy? no, it didn’t there was no quality of life and at the end of the week there was no money left....

Basically i would get up in the morning and my kids would be asleep.... when i came home at night they were asleep.... i would work Saturdays so would again miss the whole day of being at home, then come Sunday i was knackered and did not want to do anything but my wife wanted to go out so we could do something as a family....
Finally we got to a point where enough was enough i was killing my self for nothing, my marriage was suffering, my kids did not have a dad so we sold the house that we were in for a tidy profit and bought a little shack in Qld outright and with the money we had left over invested that and we have never looked back or been happier, we don’t have to have the latest crap (we only buy something new if it breaks but more than likely will buy it second hand as it will last longer!) and our quality of life is so much better now.

So to sum it all up i basically missed out on the first 3 years of my kids lives and that time i will never get back, do you think your kids will remember you for the ipod that you bought them (then was out-dated 1 month later) or do you think they will remember you for the quality time that you spent with them just doing *stuff* (remember when Dad used to take me fishing....remember when Dad used to play cricket with us... Remember when dad used to take us to the beach...) coz i can tell you now that they wont remember you for a silly little ipod...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 15:35

Originally Posted By: ROM
Interesting that somebody like YS who demands to live his own particular brand of life style is now denigrating the lifestyle of anybody else who wants to or lives a different way of life to his.

Meanwhile instead of being parasitical on society those others of our citizens are providing the power, the water, the transport, the food, the immense numbers of services such as telecommunications and power that allow YS to rant and rave on this forum about chemicals and the other's desires for items other than those he believes in.

Those Home or so called Victory Gardens in Britain during WW2 on which so much effort was expended on, despite immense efforts by the authorities, supplied less than half the food needs of the British.
In December 1940 Britain was only a few weeks away from starvation until the U boats sinking of so many ships in the Atlantic were finally countered and the Food imports from the vast farmlands of Canada and the USA rose again to a level that kept the British population from hunger and ultimately starvation.

And all of that was with a global population of just some 3 billions.

Nothing has changed.
With well over half of the mankind's 7 billion plus numbers now living in cities of over 100,000 plus, the only way these people can be and will be fed is by the immense production of the global farm lands and world's farmers.

Farmers and farming on a huge scale using all of modern technology and without a great expansion of farm land since the end of WW2 is still the only means of supplying enough food for all of earth's peoples and will remain the only means that will continue to keep mankind from hunger and starvation.

To believe that everybody is willing to and will grow back yard vegies in some non existent plots in the cities is irrational .
To believe that some backyard vegie patches are going to feed mankind's numbers is utterly irrational and just pissing into the wind.



And there again ROM you are placing everyone in your one size fits all basket that everybody has to live the same way....and they don’t! you need to remove your blinkers! as there is a whole other world out there!

The “precious power” that i use comes straight from the sun via my 100% stand alone solar powered system so there are no nasty power bill for me and i do not use one single watt of consumer electricity...
Water...well that comes from my water storage tanks which is fed from my roof, and i am in an area which receives over 4000mm of rain a year watering is not much of an issue.
Food...well i grow as much as i can and if i have surplus will swap with others for what i don’t have or will choose very wisely from the supermarket (avoiding processed pre packaged crap)

Oh well back to my rant... now where did that other one go? oh there he is right on schedule....

And it is always funny the people with the blinker on will support each other! no matter what if ROM post anywhere in a forum SBT will be there not long later as his backbone to stick up for him! or visa versa....

Originally Posted By: SBT
The only reason I am alive today is because of the use of some of the very chemicals that you whinge about now.

That plus vaccinations which helped wipe out some very deadly diseases which I grew up with.

Something that no matter what quantity or quality of organic and natural foods you eat will ever protect you from things like polio, malaria, mumps, diptheria, whopping cough, measles, etc.

They kept our parents, grand parents and great grand parents healthy and alive long enough to have children. You seem to have forgotten that in the beginning every chemical like DDT was hailed as "Cutting Edge" and the "Saviour of mankind" that could "Free us from diseases" and that it was it's overuse by people that ended up causing the problems.



And that is the same problem now with the overuse and abuse of chemicals and it is only getting worse...things like the overuse of Glyphosate have led to an explosion of so called super weeds, but how do we over come these problems? simple the brainwaves in the chemical industry will suggest we use a more highly dangerous and damaging chemicals and hhmmmm if they don't work we better use more of them!

Another funny thing is for a person of your age (50's)you are in quite poor heath and that is a pretty sad state of affairs,and would have to point to some of those chemicals that you were exposed to in your youth could have contributed to you health problems later in life, but more likely than not we choose to blame these things on something else like just getting old....well we have neighbours who are in their mid 60's and they between the two of them could level a full truckload of Mill mud in a day or so by hand with only a shovel and wheelbarrow, then be back out the garden the next day maintaining their 10+ acres of gardens....
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 16:28

An apology is overdue to SBT from you YS.

If you had been sent into some rather difficult parts of the world by your country as has SBT as a member of Australia's armed forces on behalf of other Australians like you, you would also be likely suffering some pretty devastating health problems by now.

Hypocritically chucking [censored] at another all predicated on your own comfortable protected life is beyond the pale particularly when that person has been protecting yours and my interests and our heritage of the freedom which is allowing you and I to freely express ourselves here on this forum
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/03/2013 18:45

Originally Posted By: ROM

Hypocritically chucking [censored] at another all predicated on your own comfortable protected life is beyond the pale particularly when that person has been protecting yours and my interests and our heritage of the freedom which is allowing you and I to freely express ourselves here on this forum


Both of my Grandfather’s served in wars...one of them did not return home, so as a result my Mother was brought up as an only child by a single mother, who died in her early 50’s as a lonely broken woman, that event also robbed myself as well as my brother and sister of their Grandmother and Grandfather.

And i am fighting for my children so they hopefully have don't to put up with cynics that try to dictate their lives, just because they may be different to everyone else and not wanted to be overloaded with the chemical cocktail that is today’s society.

Also It is fine for you to belittle myself (and anyone else who does not follow your belief system) and try to smear me because i don’t follow your beliefs that every problem can be solved by opening up a chemical bottle.





Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 10:31

It is funny when you type the word Monsanto into Google look what pops up as the 3rd most popular "suggestion" wink



Another interesting one is if you type the most evil company in the world.... the number one "suggestion" MONSANTO!


Anyway here is another interesting article on the dangers of using Roundup.....

Glyphosate Toxic to Mouth Cells & Damages DNA, Roundup Much Worse
By Fritz Kreiss | March 9, 2013 | Corporate Social
Further evidence of genotoxic and cytotoxic effects – a prelude to cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji



New research finds that glyphosate causes cell and DNA damage to epithelial cells derived from the inside of the mouth and throat [1]. It raises concerns over the safety of inhaling glyphosate, one of the most common ways in which people are exposed to the herbicide.

Siegfried Knasmueller and his colleagues the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, found that Monsanto’s formulated version of glyphosate called Roundup Ultra Max caused cellular damage and DNA damage including chromosomal abnormalities and ultimately killed the cells at higher concentrations. Importantly, DNA damage occurred at concentrations below those required to induce cell damage, suggesting that the DNA damage was caused directly by glyphosate instead of being an indirect result of cell toxicity.

These are not the first findings of glyphosate-based herbicides’ cytotoxic and genotoxic effects. Numerous independent research teams have been documenting the hazards of glyphosate exposure over the last few years with in vivo, in vitro and clinical studies.

DNA damage was observed in blood samples from exposed residents in Argentina and Ecuador [2, 3]. Lab mice were found to harbour chromosomal and DNA damage in bone marrow, liver and kidney cells as well as lymphoid cells [4]. Similar effects were found in non-mammalian species, including sea urchins [5], goldfish [6, 7], eels [8], tilapia fish [9] as well as the fruitfly [10]. These experiments show that glyphosate herbicides are dangerous for humans and many other animals. Glyphosate is highly soluble in water, so impacts on aquatic wildlife may be of particular concern, especially following the recent report on the presence of glyphosate in rain water, groundwater, rivers and air [11, 12]. Its extreme toxic effects on amphibians such as frogs has already been shown (see [13] Roundup Kills Frogs, SiS 26). Cell damage has been documented in many cell types including those derived from the rat testis (see [14] Glyphosate Kills Rat Testes Cells, SiS 54), human placenta, umbilical cord, and embryo (see [15] Death by Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup, SiS 42), rat and carp neurones [16, 17], and liver [18, 19].

Multiple tests all show cellular damage in response to Roundup

To reflect occupational exposure, human buccal epithelial cells were exposed to glyphosate and Roundup for 20 minutes only at concentrations from 10 mg/L to 200 mg/L. The Roundup formulation used for the experiments contains 450 g/L of glyphosate and should be diluted according to the manufacturer’s instructions to 1–3 % before use (final concentration 4 500–13 500 mg/l). The researchers found some significant effects with 10-20 mg/l, equivalent to a 225–1 350-fold dilution of the spraying solution.

Cell damage was assessed by the release of the membrane-bound enzyme lactose dehydrogenase into the culture medium. The integrity and viability of cells was indicated by their staining with neutral red as only healthy cells retain the dye. Mitochondrial function was assessed by measuring the activity of the enzyme mitochondrial dehydrogenase with the substrate XXT that gives a yellow colour product. And cell proliferation was measured by the total protein content of the cell cultures.

The results showed that the cells were much more sensitive to the Roundup formulation than glyphosate. With Roundup, a significant effect was seen at a dose level of 40 mg/L with the XXT assay, while a clear increase of the lactose dehydrogenase levels was seen already with 10 mg/L. The cell proliferation and the neutral red assays were less responsive, with significant effects detected at 80 and 100 mg/L, respectively (still well below agricultural use levels). All effects were dose-dependent.

With glyphosate, no significant effects were seen in 3 of the 4 assays, with only lactose dehydrogenase showing significant effects at over 80 mg/l.

Multiple tests show Roundup causes DNA damage

DNA damage was analysed by two methods. The first is the Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis (SCGE) assay, which reveals single or double-stranded breaks in DNA. The second is a special comprehensive assay of chromosome instability that picks up many DNA aberrations including chromosome breakage, DNA misrepair, chromosome loss, as well as cell death by either necrosis (cell death that results from external stressors such as toxins), apoptosis (programmed cell-death) and cell growth. Different nuclear anomalies were measured including micronuclei, a biomarker of chromosomal damage, breakage or loss; nuclear buds, a biomarker of elimination of amplified DNA and/or DNA repair complexes; and nucleoplasmic bridges reflecting the formation of dicentric chromosomes (chromosomes with 2 instead of 1 centromere) , a marker of DNA misrepair and/or end-fusions of the chromosomes.

Significant effects on DNA integrity as assessed by the SCGE assay were seen at 20 mg/l of both Roundup and glyphosate, increasing in a dose-dependent manner.

Exposure of the cells for 20 minutes also led to a significant and dose-dependent increase of nuclear anomalies including increases in the total number of micronuclei beginning at 10 mg/L of Roundup, and 15 mg/L of glyphosate. The number of nuclear buds increased with exposure concentrations, starting at 10 mg/L with both glyphosate and Roundup. In the case of the nucleoplasmic bridges, the only significant effect was obtained with the highest dose of Roundup used (20 mg/L). Apoptotic cells were observed following 20mg/L of Roundup but not glyphosate, while necrosis occurred in response to 20mg/L of both Roundup and glyphosate.

In summary, Roundup was cytotoxic at concentrations as low as 20 mg/L, while its active ingredient was not generally cytotoxic to buccal epithelial cells. Both glyphosate and Roundup elicited genotoxic effects at concentrations below the level required to induce cell damage. The different effects between the active ingredient and its commercial formulation is consistent with previous work, including experiments done on testicular, placental, embryonic and umbilical cord cells (see above). These results may explain some of the ailments observed in people who work with this herbicide and adds yet more weight to an outright ban of the herbicide [20] Ban Glyphosate Herbicides Now, SiS 43).
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/03...dup-much-worse/
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 15:40

You're really going to have to start spreading your hate around a lot more than just on Monsanto YS.

Here's a list of the world's major manufacturers of glyphosate.

Global Glyphosate Industry

This report analyzes the worldwide markets for Glyphosate in Thousand Metric Tons.
The report provides separate comprehensive analytics for US, Canada, Japan, Europe, Asia-Pacific, The Middle East, and Latin America. Annual estimates and forecasts are provided for the period 2009 through 2017.
Also, a six-year historic analysis is provided for these markets.
The report profiles 103 companies including many key and niche players such as Anhui Huaxing Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Cheminova, Inc., Dow AgroSciences LLC, E. I. du Pont Canada Company, Fujian Sannong Group Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Good Harvest-Weien Agrochemical, JingMa Chemicals Co. Ltd., Makhteshim Agan Industries Limited, Monsanto Company, Nantong Jiangshan Agrochemical & Chemical Co., Ltd., Nufarm Limited, Shandong Weifang Rainbow Chemical, Syngenta AG, United Phosphorus Limited, Zhejiang Jinfanda Biochemical Co. Ltd., and Zhejiang Wynca Chemical Group Co. Ltd. Market data and analytics are derived from primary and secondary research. Company profiles are mostly extracted from URL research and reported select online source
************************************

Now somebody somewhere must be finding glyphosate to be a very useful herbicide and a pretty safe one at that or they would'nt be buying it in quantities like this.
And this is only China with India, South America such as Brazil and Argentina plus the Central Asian and SE Asian countries not far behind.

Seems like all the health authorities in these countries are quite at ease with the use of glyphosate produced by all these "evil" chemical companies, the same companies that provide the raw materials from which so much of what you use is made from.

Outlook for China Glyphosate Industry 2012-2016

Quote:
Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum non-selective herbicide widely used to kill unwanted plants both in agricultural and in nonagricultural landscapes, has been in a leading position in the world's herbicides in the past few years. It is estimated that the global consumption of glyphosate in 2011 is about 650,000 tonnes (converted to glyphosate technical 95%) and will increase with a CAGR of over 3.10% during 2012-2016.

Though the global glyphosate industry has witnessed low price, poor profit (mainly technical), oversupply, etc. since the end of 2008, China remains the top production country of glyphosate in the world with glyphosate technical capacity of over 700,000t/a in 2011, but a certain number of domestic glyphosate production units kept idle all the year around. With strong competitiveness in technical and low-level formulation production, China will play a more and more important role in global glyphosate industry in the coming few years.

Three production routes for glyphosate technical namely glycine route, IDAN route and DEA route coexist in China. In recent few years, the domestic PMIDA & glyphosate technical production has made marked progress, consisting in rising yield, mature by-product recovery technology, continuous R&D and application of waste water treatment technology (mainly membrane separation technology), etc.; in addition, the supply and the price of the key raw materials including DEA, glycine, IDAN, etc. have changed much since 2008, thus the competition among the three routes is becoming fierce and will be more fierce in the future. You can find the above mentioned details in this report.

Owning to its excellent efficiency in weed control, glyphosate is also the most widely used herbicide in China.
China is a large agricultural country, with cultivated land area of 120 million ha., over 70 million ha. of which employ herbicides for weed control, and its glyphosate consumption volume is over 30,000 tonnes (converted to glyphosate technical 95%) annually.
The ban of glyphosate 10%SL results in a reshuffle of the domestic glyphosate market.
What is the future trend of glyphosate by specifications, can 30%SL (mainly 41%IPA) play a dominant role, can other specifications like 62%IPA, 68%(W)SG, 50%SP seize more market shares?
What is the regional distribution of glyphosate use and what is the use of glyphosate by crops? This report will reveal the market situation of glyphosate in China.

This report, based on CCM International’s 10-year research experiences in Chinese glyphosate industry and its upstream sectors, dives deep into China’s glyphosate industry to figure out the industry’s key influencing factors, latest dynamics and future trends, in terms of production, technology, price, export, consumption/demand, key players’ competitiveness and production cost, international collaboration, etc. From a global perspective, this seventh edition Glyphosate China Report will provide you with CCM International’s primary intelligence and insight.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 16:45

The article in Question refers to Roundup, i am more than happy put up as many articles on Glyphosate (or other chemical dangers) as i find them (which wont be hard grin )
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 16:48

"Roundup" IS Glyphosate!!!

"Roundup" is a generic name for the herbicide chemical "glyphosate"
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 17:34

That report does not say anything to mitigate my concern about the toxic effects of Glyphosate type herbicides... Just because China or some other multi-million companies and goverments are making bucket loads of $$$$ selling it, it does not mean we have to put it in our food or soils for that matter ...

Here is a link that may explain why:

http://permaculture.com.au/online/articl...-target-species
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 19:22

I am having quite a laugh over this.
Seems like there is a hate campaign going on against a herbicide which even the correct chemical name isn't actually known by the hater[s] or that as the chemical glyphosate is long out of patent that there are a number of very large chemical companies making glyphosate.
Glyphosate of course like most chemicals in every conceivable use is made from products like ethylene which is derived and formulated from hydrocarbons like oil and gas.

Glyphosate, to give some idea on it's toxicity, resulted from an accidental spill while a container was being carried across a lawn at Monsanto's laboratories . A few days later the lawn started to die where the spill occurred.

The Monsanto research where this happened was into formulating soaps and detergents.

So thats the background to Glyphosate's toxicity, it originated in an experimental detergent formulation,
Despite the anti Roundup crap propaganda by the usual suspects from the more extreme end of the greens and enviros, the toxicity of glyphosate is quite low which is why it is so widely accepted around the world by all government chemical testing authorities as being very safe to use and very effective.
This despite the hatred and invective directed at Monsanto which has little to do with glyphosate and a hell of a lot to do with the more radical left wing hatred of big business as we are seeing.

I carry no brief for the chemical companies but they are one of mankind's most basic and vital industries that supply the semi raw processed materials that then go into making up so much of the material goods and products that we enjoy in our civilisation.

Without the herbicides, fungicides and numerous other farm chemicals used at various times in the whole range of agricultural industries and in the food product manufacturing industries [ chook feathers were still an accepted additive to bread in the 1970's when I was a member of an agricultural committee but had not been used for a couple of decades and we made sure they were cancelled out of the legal additives list, And that was just one additive out of hundreds including some doozies from long before a half a century ago ] there is simply no way that we could presently feed mankind's numbers on this planet.

We know from history prior to the advent of herbicides in the late 1940's the 2.4D's that we can feed around 3 billion people if we don't use herbicides or chemicals of any sort in world agriculture.
With new varieties of crops of every sort since the 1940's plus advances in mechanisation and etc plus some extra areas of arable land being opened up we may be able to feed perhaps 4.5, maybe even 5 billions at a stretch now without the use of any herbicides or farm chemicals to control weeds and pests of every type.

The cost would be massive soil erosion, loss of top soil and therefore fertility through constant cultivation to control weeds [ my post Page 7, Climate Science thread on my experiences with soil erosion prior to herbicides in the early 1940's ] plus possibly the needs for 4 or 5 times the current farm labour force we need at present plus food prices that would have to match at least the inflation adjusted prices of the 1940' ie; wheat as just one example again, from which flour, bread, pasta, cakes, starch and etc and etc comes would not be the current unsustainable prices of $230 tonne we get at present but around the $1000 / tonne or much more if there were no herbicides.

And sometimes double this with a corresponding increase in all your food, meat and grocery prices and in the prices of many other products that have a farmed plant origin such as oils, spices, fruit, vegetables and etc to pick a few as the use of herbicides, insecticides, nematicides and etc runs across ALL food products of what ever type and origin.

And there would also be regular shortages of food as well even with feeding only 4.5 billions using non chemical assistance in the growing of food crops.

And all that would still be with the full farm mechanisation we have at the moment.

So perhaps the anti farm chemical mob should think about how they are going to feed those other 2 to 2.5 billions of humans without herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and etc if they want to ban farm chemicals.

Of course there would be no guarantee at all to say they wouldn't be amongst those condemned to death from slow starvation if they successfully banned and got rid of all farm chemicals because those chemicals were dangerous and could make people ill!!

Having posted all that , the farmers and Ag researchers of the world are constantly looking for ways and means of reducing and minimising as much as they can get away with, the use of herbicides and all the other "cides in their farm operations.
We don't like in the least using these products and we like even less paying for them.

Each and all deliveries of all grains to the storages during harvest and after have small samples taken from each load.
All these samples are tested for chemical residues as all herbicides, fungicides and etc have withholding periods which is the safety period which allows the plant to metabolise and break down the chemical prior to the grain being fully developed so that no residues get into the grain.
It's a pain in the arse but it works and keeps everybody honest and your food from Australian farms of high quality.

One of the ways of retaining and increasing soil fertility is to use just one pass for the entire season of the cultivation machinery using very expensive specialized machinery across the fields and that one pass is only when the grain crops here in the SE are being sown at the start of winter.

In this soil and fertility preservation type of system all weeds and diseases and fungal diseases have to be controlled by the various sprays we put on the crop through it's growing season.
The problems in this system of extensive chemical use , [ perhaps those of a fair and reasonable frame of mind might be able to now see some of the very extensive compromises that have to be made when you are a farmer and trying to get the best of all world's while dealing with Nature throwing all the curve balls it can at us ] is that certain weed species can and do develop resistance to the herbicides as do the fungal diseases of the plants to the fungicides

A few weed species have become resistant to all herbicides and there are a hell of a lot of different variations of herbicides [ and fungicides and etc ] but grouped into about 6 or 7 "modes of action" or families of herbicides.

Now there are systems being developed to go back to some cultivation using quite specialised plows that will bury the top layer of soil quite deep together with the weeds seeds found there.
But as always there will be some serious drawbacks to this technique as well which will only surface after some years of use.
This still has lot of work to be done before this idea might work successfully but it is just another in the long hard road that farmers and agricultural researchers travel so that you can all get good cheap, high quality food, always .

For how much longer here in Australia our farmers will be able to continue to produce high quality food in considerable quantities I do not know for as we are seeing on this thread, the attempts to cripple the Australian farmer's ability to grow that food by the radical, unthinking and a completely ignorant spectrum of the green moralistic do-gooders who have adopted a totally impractical and completely ignorant and unattainable approach to the problems of farming here in Australia.

Enjoy your cheap food while you can for so many countries in the world are doing everything they can to guarantee their own food security for the future [ except Australia ] by buying up farm land where ever it is in reliable growing areas in what ever countries they can .
The food, like cotton already does, off that foreign owned land will go straight to the wharves, onto the ships and to their home countries and your wants won't even be considered unless you pay and pay and pay to get your own home grown food back.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 20:06

BINGO!
Quote:
I am having quite a laugh over this.
Seems like there is a hate campaign going on against a herbicide which even the correct chemical name isn't actually known by the hater[s] or that as the chemical glyphosate is long out of patent that there are a number of very large chemical companies making glyphosate.


The penny finally drops for some! well yes glyphosate is out of patent, why do you think the money grubbers at Monsanto came up with the wonderful idea to genetically modify food? (it wasn't to feed the poor starving hungry masses) no it was to line their own pockets.
Because the funny thing is if you use Monsanto's GM seed, you have to sign a contract stipulating the fact that you will use MONSANTO brand ROUNDUP on your crops, and you also have to use MONSANTO brand fertilizers, so therefore a nice little backdoor way to assure that they still get there little pockets full of your hard earned money..(because if you do not adhere to the contract they will sue you because of it)
So the more crops that they can genetically modify then the more Roundup they are gaurenteed to sell.

If you grow crops,you might find some nice little suited men arrive on your doorstep one day saying, excuse me that crop that you have planted now belongs to us, as your neighbour has planted GM crops and the pollen from said crops has blown onto your crops therefore creating a transgenic cross, if you do not hand the crop over we will issue legal proceedings against you..as we own the patent to the GM crop next door.
Sound far fetched? well not as far fetched as it may seem as that scenario has happened many a time in the USA.

The only "haters" around these parts are the ones that don't like anything to be different....
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 20:39

ROM your views are amazing. I really wish that green chemical revolution had been as great as it was made out to be - but it is not. We are slowly realising that there is no free lunch - that when we try to ride roughshod over nature she fights back. Look at the superweeds, look at the increasing evidence that round up is as toxic as anything... Nobody hating anything here (though admit I come close as far as companies like Monsanto go) - simply tagging the reality that the chemical farming revolution was not the long term solution it was made out to be. Short term gain for long term pain. And Monsanto laughing all the way to the bank... As many of their farmers cry all the way to the grave. Some great revolutions are occurring in farming - some of the latest thinking on organic and sustainable farming is very exciting - but to knock back those who are merely sharing the reality of modern chemical farming is a shame. Open your eyes, time to wake up, enough is enough is enough is enough (as some lyrics I know well go :))
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 21:08

agree, Bello Boy. I remember when glyphosate/round up was released, some character proposed to drink some, to show how harmless it was. I think a lot of us at the time thought "hubristic idiot".

I grew up on an apple farm using all the standard chemicals, herbicides and fungicides and insecticides. My family has now gone to "minimum spray", using other methods like encouragement of predators. One reason being my mother (the farmer) is now so sensitive to chemicals that she can't eat most foods.

Using these newer (or older?!) methods is more labour intensive, and you can't guarantee the size of crop or the quality, but for all that, we're actually doing pretty well. There's a few more "horse apples" and seconds, but using the new small-tree trellis plantings, we can have more varieties and reduce gluts of various types through the season.

We won't be going back.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/03/2013 21:53

There is no doubt that the use of herbicides can be reduced or eliminated in small operations where the individual can give some loving care and attention to his / her plots or relatively small areas but I am not even discussing the personalised small area farming or back yard operation.
This seems to be the predominant theme of all the critiscm here, the complete inability to look outside of your own quite small circle at the global scale of food production.

I am looking at the supplying food to the 7 billions of humanity on this planet in quantities and qualities that will enable starvation to be kept at bay and hunger to be eliminated amongst our race.

Just for an idea on the scale of global grain production all done with the use of chemicals in the production systems, the USDA has estimated that for the three classes of grain, Wheat, Coarse grains and Rice , the world's farmers in 2012 / 13 will produce 2300 million tonnes of grain.
We will use and consume about 1966 million tonnes of that grain leaving an ending stock of around 388 million tonnes.

Despite this the rough figures are that around a billion people go to bed hungry each night, not starving but hungry. The real fear amongst the politicians of so many countries is the fear of food shortages and the consequent food riots such as this from Wiki

2008 / 2009 World Food Price Crisis.

Quote:
World food prices increased dramatically in 2007 and the 1st and 2nd quarter of 2008[1] creating a global crisis and causing political and economical instability and social unrest in both poor and developed nations. Although the media spotlight focused on the riots that ensued in the face of high prices, the ongoing crisis of food insecurity has been years in the making.[2][3] Systemic causes for the worldwide increases in food prices continue to be the subject of debate. After peaking in the second quarter of 2008 prices fell dramatically during the Late-2000s recession but increased during 2009 and 2010, peaking again in early 2011 at a level sightly higher than the level reached in 2008.[1][4] However a repeat of the crisis of 2008 is not anticipated due to ample stockpiles.[5]
Initial causes of the late-2006 price spikes included droughts in grain-producing nations and rising oil prices.[6] Oil price increases also caused general escalations in the costs of fertilizers, food transportation, and industrial agriculture. Root causes may be the increasing use of biofuels in developed countries (see also food vs fuel),[7] and an increasing demand for a more varied diet across the expanding middle-class populations of Asia.[8][9]
These factors, coupled with falling world-food stockpiles all contributed to the worldwide rise in food prices.[10]


Here in Australia with more food than you know what to do with on the supermarket shelves you can all afford to be in your ignorance quite moralistically self righteous about how somebody else actually produces food but if you tried that sort of stunt amongst many of these heavily populated, land poor nations you would get run out of town very quickly.

If the Chinese renown for their efficient small farm work ethic can't produce enough food from their small family plots to feed China's 1.3 billions without having to go to extensive use of the various herbicides to raise productivity and then still import very large quantities of food plus buy up enormous acreages in Africa and attempting to do so in Australia, Brazil Argentina , all to provide further food security for themselves then it says something about the utter impracticality of the hyper ventilators of the dangers of using chemicals in farming to raise production.

I don't think that will be major food shortages into the future unless as I posted in an earlier post, we start to see some global cooling possibly as early as around 2020 which will have a quite severe impact of the far northern Canadian and eurasian crop food production areas.
In effect wiping them out and with the cooling, longer, colder winters and shorter growing seasons in the central European and Russian and central Asian grain producing areas.
In those circumstances nobody is going to give a rat's arse about how the moralistic do gooders feel about the use of herbicides anywhere.
The job will be just produce food for god's sake to try and keep global hunger at bay.

A handful of you might rant and rave but the rest off the world just moves on with it's sights set very firmly on keeping it's stomach full and it's comfort in place while the ranters and ravers against chemicals in agriculture will wail in the dark wanted by nobody and in the end ignored by everybody.

Thats the simple reality.
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 09:56

You know, it's generally held on the internet that when a person starts hurling abuse during a discussion, they've lost the argument.

Chemicals have been used in agriculture since humankind started farming rather than hunting and gathering. However, humankind has also prospered by its ability to learn, and right now, many people are learning that by the looks of things, we might have gone overboard with the use of some chemicals.

The current issue with bees is a prime example. In some areas, bee populations are drastically reducing. Debate is still happening as to the cause, but no one is discounting a link with use of certain agricultural chemicals.

We're a very clever race, but even conservative scientists accept that without bees, the human race in its current numbers cannot continue. In fact, a majority of us will starve in years.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 10:52

From your post ROM I (and I guess everyone else who disagrees with your perspective) are:

Ignorant
Moralistic
Self Righteous
A Do Gooder
A hyper ventilator
Someone who rants and raves
Someone who will wail in the dark
Someone who will be ignored by everybody
Somone who will be run out of town

...and that is from one post. Quite impressive really.

So - how about we have a debate where you keep your personal attacks in check and actually debate the points raised in a constructive way. Sorry mate but the world has changed in the last 30 years and your faith in the chemical companies may have been more on the mark then but right now everyone is in it for the money, regardless of the consequences. Why not listen to some of the feedback on here from folk with real experience and nothing to gain from their posts rather than simply rant against them because they counter your view of the world? For me it is heartening to read some of the posts on here and find others whose perspective sits comfortably with my experience. Likely to learn more from those I disagree with for us, but unlikely to be from those who see fit to describe those with different views in the ways detailed above.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 11:03

ROM you are like concrete, you are just so set in your ways for you the only option to grow food successfully is to completely cover everything in a barrage of chemicals that kills all insects good and bad, well nothing could be further from the truth there are plenty of other ways to grow food that do not involve chemicals.

Take banana’s as an example they would have to be one of the crops most heavily reliant chemicals that i know, but there are a number of growers up here that have shunned the use of chemicals completely and grow their crops organically and they are flourishing because of the change.

One of them is http://www.eco-banana.com.au/ they work with nature rather than against, they avoid the broad scale kill everything that moves mentality of the chemical industry and prefer the approach of encouraging beneficial insects and other predators to take out the bad bugs.

Bello boy would also know a thing or two about organics as the area where he lives is heavily influenced by organic growers.

I always find that with my patch, in the beginning when it is first started for about the first few weeks the young plants get attacked by bugs, but after that the eco system has built back up to a point where the good bugs overtake the bad bugs and i have to do very little for the rest of the season except squash a few caterpillars by hand every now and then...

Chemicals like everything have their place but to me if you use say 1 ltr of a chemical to do a job of killing weeds(for example) and then a few years down the track you have to use 5 ltrs of the same chemical to achieve the same result, and then a few more years later you have to use 10 ltrs of the same chemical to do the same job (and spray the same weeds more often i might add) well then quite simply it is not rocket science, something is not working.

If you have to use 10x the amount of chemicals to kill weeds then something is wrong, we had 2 guys here from biosecurity QLD once looking for Siam weed and they told me when they first started that they used to use the standard amount stated on the label to kill the Siam weed, but now when they mix it up they have to use over 100 times what they were using in the beginning otherwise it simply does not work.........Both of them also informed me that they had also suffered from cancers not to long ago and had wondered if the chemicals were the cause of the cancers.They also state that they would prefer not to have to use the chemicals as it is much easier for them and also much more effective if they just manually remove the clumps by hand with a mattock, but their bosses insist that they use the chemicals and if they don’t, they get into trouble for it....

One of them proudly told me however that he very much liked the way i was doing things on my property and that he wanted to do exactly the same thing on his newly acquired block of land (and that is coming from someone that works with noxious chemicals everyday, so i guess you can convert some of the smarter ones)

You state about the Chinese growing food, well when they did they did not grow food in Monocultures, they incorporated numerous crops at the same time and they worked WITH nature rather than against it, until one day some bright spark came along and said “why do things the hard way...here use some of theses fantastic chemicals it will increase your yield” well it might have for a few years,but it was all down hill from then.
The Farmers that still choose to grow using traditional farming methods have much higher yields than those that chose to use chemicals.

And like i have stated oh so many times, if there is a shortage of food then why does so much fresh food get sent to land fill before it has even left the farm? how many tones of food are wasted just because it is the wrong shape, size, colour or has small blemishes...people are just too fussy for their own good! and if they were not so fussy there would be more fresh food to go around and it would also be cheaper.

Originally Posted By: ant
agree, Bello Boy. I remember when glyphosate/round up was released, some character proposed to drink some, to show how harmless it was. I think a lot of us at the time thought "hubristic idiot".

And i bet he would have been raced straight off to hospital if he did!

My uncle has the early stages of Dementia and for some unknow reason he drank some roundup and it nearly killed him!
The lining of his throat was very badly burned by the Roundup and it also damaged his stomach, because of that he had to spend months in hospital recovering(and he has never been the same since)
Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
From your post ROM I (and I guess everyone else who disagrees with your perspective) are:

Ignorant
Moralistic
Self Righteous
A Do Gooder
A hyper ventilator
Someone who rants and raves
Someone who will wail in the dark
Someone who will be ignored by everybody
Somone who will be run out of town

...and that is from one post. Quite impressive really.

So - how about we have a debate where you keep your personal attacks in check and actually debate the points raised in a constructive way. Sorry mate but the world has changed in the last 30 years and your faith in the chemical companies may have been more on the mark then but right now everyone is in it for the money, regardless of the consequences. Why not listen to some of the feedback on here from folk with real experience and nothing to gain from their posts rather than simply rant against them because they counter your view of the world? For me it is heartening to read some of the posts on here and find others whose perspective sits comfortably with my experience. Likely to learn more from those I disagree with for us, but unlikely to be from those who see fit to describe those with different views in the ways detailed above.


You hit the nail right on the head there...
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 12:20

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
From your post ROM I (and I guess everyone else who disagrees with your perspective) are:

Ignorant
Moralistic
Self Righteous
A Do Gooder
A hyper ventilator
Someone who rants and raves
Someone who will wail in the dark
Someone who will be ignored by everybody
Somone who will be run out of town

...and that is from one post. Quite impressive really.

So - how about we have a debate where you keep your personal attacks in check and actually debate the points raised in a constructive way. Sorry mate but the world has changed in the last 30 years and your faith in the chemical companies may have been more on the mark then but right now everyone is in it for the money, regardless of the consequences. Why not listen to some of the feedback on here from folk with real experience and nothing to gain from their posts rather than simply rant against them because they counter your view of the world? For me it is heartening to read some of the posts on here and find others whose perspective sits comfortably with my experience. Likely to learn more from those I disagree with for us, but unlikely to be from those who see fit to describe those with different views in the ways detailed above.


You hit the nail right on the head there...


laugh In your 'learned' opinions of course!

What I've learnt over my relatively short stint of 32 years is that you ignore the words and advice of the older generations at your own peril.

What I have not seen anyone on the 'organic / sustainable' growing side of things ever take into account is something called the herd immunity or effect. It's all well and good to put forth ideas that seem to tick all of the right boxes but the methods are not being put to a true test. Right now small organic plantings are sitting pretty under the protective umbrella of those who employ conventional farming methods.

The other situation that I have seen this year is in my next door neighbour's vegie patch. They enjoy the challenge of growing their own foods and they often do a terrific job of that, sharing the awesome spoils with us occasionally. This year has been a completely different kettle of fish. For some reason, the conditions have not been conducive to much of a yield at all and they've had to resort to shop bought for much of the stuff that they usually grow. So they've put the time, effort and money into their patch over the past 12 months for no return. For them, it's no real skin of their nose, they are retired, for most people though, it would be a poor investment in time considering everything else that becomes a part of everyday life. Of course that is but one small scale example of a situation that you never hear about when you hear of advocates speak of their vegie gardens!

So why don't we hear about the failures? Is that because they have never happened? Well I'm no god botherer, but the bible is a pretty handy way of reading about man's issues with famine brought on by failed crops due to pestilence, drought etc. Whilst some would no doubt love to put these down to fairy tales of the imagination, these events were definitely grounded in truth. In fact, civilisations over the centuries laid down all sorts of sacrifices to appease the gods so that they would not be punished through crop failures and subsequent hunger. The point here is, today's cropping methods have evolved from having to deal with the adverse events of the past and whether you like it or not, have been very successful in feeding the population to date.

Whilst today's techniques are not perfect they will continue to evolve and become ever more efficient and safer.

YS, you've broadcast many of your opinions and want them to be seen as fact, for example my bold:

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

... broad scale kill everything that moves mentality of the chemical industry

Nice emotional statement, mind sticking to the facts a bit more? You're just chasing public opinion to backup your position. I've spoken to countless numbers of reps in the chemical field and they DO NOT exhibit this mindset at all

Chemicals like everything have their place but to me if you use say 1 ltr of a chemical to do a job of killing weeds(for example) and then a few years down the track you have to use 5 ltrs of the same chemical to achieve the same result, and then a few more years later you have to use 10 ltrs of the same chemical to do the same job (and spray the same weeds more often i might add) well then quite simply it is not rocket science, something is not working.

So what you've done here is completely contradict your own statement. So chemicals have a place? But if you end up using too much then you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that it's not working? Thanks for the tip, but if you read pretty much any advice in relation to the use of chemicals you will have seen that rotating products to prevent immunities is of utmost importance. This prevents the need to use copious amounts of chemicals. Also once again you have fallen back into your habit of quoting ridiculous figures to elicit an emotional reaction from the reader. Depending on the weed that I am spraying, I can use as little as 35ml / 10 litres of water. The most I've used is 150ml / 10 litres. Not even close to the hyper-exagerated quantities you are quoting.

... but their bosses insist that they use the chemicals and if they don’t, they get into trouble for it....

Manual removal is obviously more labour intensive and will cost more. It's efficacy is easily compromised depending on the amount of seed waiting to germinate within the seedbed. Tax / rate payers (you know the people who ultimately pick up the tab for government services) would hardly see the value in sending out copious numbers of people to fix a recurring problem.


Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: ant
agree, Bello Boy. I remember when glyphosate/round up was released, some character proposed to drink some, to show how harmless it was. I think a lot of us at the time thought "hubristic idiot".

And i bet he would have been raced straight off to hospital if he did!

My uncle has the early stages of Dementia and for some unknow reason he drank some roundup and it nearly killed him!
The lining of his throat was very badly burned by the Roundup and it also damaged his stomach, because of that he had to spend months in hospital recovering(and he has never been the same since)


Really? laugh I must've missed the bit that says Roundup makes an excellent mixer... For crying out loud this is getting stupid. Let's take a completely irrelevant event and tie it to our cause which is 'must demonise all chemicals because they are made by greedy multinationals at any cost (and by that inference, they could not have done anything at all that could be seen in a positive light'. You know, people will actually be dumber for having read some of the spurious claims in this thread.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 12:50

Farmers around the world are proffessionals as in in every other proffession.

Farmers are always looking at trying to do carry out their proffession, that of growing plants suited for food, fibre, oils, spices medicinal, sea food and so many other items in common use, in a better, safer, cleaner and cheaper way so that everybody benefits who uses those products, benefits.
Farming technology is constantly changing as better ways are found to farm and new problems as they arise whether man made or natural need to be combatted. met and countered or taken into account.

When i started faming as a teenager. 2.6 tonnes a hectare was a good wheat crop.
Today a good wheat crop of that same farm will be over 4 tonnes a hectare and up to 5 tonnes / Ha.
As well the soil carbon has risen considerably in those 55 years, erosion no longer exists, soil fertility has risen very markedly and we can grow a crop every year of every acre whereas in those early 1950's we got one crop every two years.

There is minimum till where only one or two passes of the fields are made, one of then the sowing pass, the crop residues from the previous years are kept and incorporated into the soil, tramlining, the following for the season of a set of wheel tracks by machinery to prevent soil compaction is common, computer controlled spreading of fertilizers, computer controlled spray droplets to minimise chemical use and increase efficacy, aerated grain storage, treatment of grain prior to sowing to prevent grain borne pathogens such as the often deadly botulism of the past centuries that regularly killed and numerous other advances using advanced technology in not only the grain production industries but also in the livestock industries, vegies, sea food and you name it in the entire food industry.

Now thats all happened over the last 55 years of my life and the rate of innovation in farming of every type is increasing rapidly.
Crop yields are going up,
Soil fertility is increasing while even more production is being taken from those same fields.
Food safety is becoming an increasing point of regulation and checking by health and food authorities
.
If that isn't sustainable farming then you have a very cockeyed view of the realities in this life.
Every farmer is subject to peer pressure just like in any other proffession and he will be judged by his peers as to how he handles his farming and what state he leaves his farm and it's soil in and thats a damn good spur to keep any farmer up to scratch with his care of the land.

There are contamination problems, some quite serious in farming and thats to do particularly with livestock and chicken industries where there is bacterial contamination from some farming practices but mostly from the processes involved in food processing and food preparation post farm through sellers and into kitchens particularly those of the restaurants and fast food sellers.

There is no point in trying to sweep that under the carpet and it will always be serious risk as everybody eats food of some sort at least once a day and often far more often than that, so contamination somewhere in the food chain is always a possibility and will unfortunately never be completely eliminated.
As nearly all of mankind now relies on at least some food from outside of any production he might generate him/ herself and with most of humanity now relying entirely on food produced by others the probability of regular outbreaks of viral and bacterial infections will always be with us.
All we can hope for is to minimise as much as possible the likelihood of such outbreaks and pick them up as rapidly as possible when they do occur.
However the death rates today from food borne contamination is miniscule compared to the death rates before refrigeration or food handling methods and the role of cleanliness was fully understood in previous centuries
To quote from a National Geographic article'
Quote:
The greatest hazards today in the American food supply are not pesticide residues or dioxins or even hidden allergens but food-borne pathogens—bacteria, viruses, parasites—with the potential to harm or kill us.


Again, what I am seeing here again is a arrogant, patronising, condescending attitude to proffessional farmers whose life times of acquired expertise, training and knowledge and wide experience is being rubbished by some rank amateurs who assume they are the founts of all knowledge on farming technology and farm production technology safety around the world.

If you read a couple of greenpeace propaganda bits on some medical subject and then went along to a surgeon and started to tell him how to do his job based on what you had read you would get what you deserve.

In your ignorance and arrogance this the exact parallel to how in your ignorance you are trying to tell professional Australian farmers how they should be farming.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 13:26

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
In your 'learned' opinions of course!

What I've learnt over my relatively short stint of 32 years is that you ignore the words and advice of the older generations at your own peril.


Exactly, i am older than you so ignore me at your peril.... smirk

It never ceases to amaze me if some body does not believe that conventional methods are gospel you are labled as weird...... hmmm

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
So what you've done here is completely contradict your own statement. So chemicals have a place? But if you end up using too much then you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that it's not working? Thanks for the tip, but if you read pretty much any advice in relation to the use of chemicals you will have seen that rotating products to prevent immunities is of utmost importance. This prevents the need to use copious amounts of chemicals. Also once again you have fallen back into your habit of quoting ridiculous figures to elicit an emotional reaction from the reader. Depending on the weed that I am spraying, I can use as little as 35ml / 10 litres of water. The most I've used is 150ml / 10 litres. Not even close to the hyper-exagerated quantities you are quoting.

Of course everything has a place (and it is easy to put you back in yours) The “over exaggeration” that you happily refer to is on a broadscale term that i am referring to, not just your average jo-blow.. that mixes up a bit of roundup to spray on those few unsightly little weeds that are popping up thru his well manicured concrete....but i digress
I was referring bulk qtys and how much a FARMER would mix together is he were spraying weeds, same as the fellas from BIOsec ,they mix up bulk quantities at a time..


Maybe you need to read a bit better?
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
Manual removal is obviously more labour intensive and will cost more. It's efficacy is easily compromised depending on the amount of seed waiting to germinate within the seedbed. Tax / rate payers (you know the people who ultimately pick up the tab for government services) would hardly see the value in sending out copious numbers of people to fix a recurring problem.


What i stated was....
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
they also state that they would prefer not to have to use the chemicals as it is much easier for them and also much more effective if they just manually remove the clumps by hand with a mattock, but their bosses insist that they use the chemicals and if they don’t, they get into trouble for it....


So in simple terms so you can understand (since as you say you are now much Dumber for reading this thread (**your words**)) that if they manually remove it, it is actually EASIER for them and does a much better job as they can actually remove the bulk of the root system, and that in turn saves them time as the do not then have to come back and spray as often.

You sir are the one who contradicts themselves...
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
What I've learnt over my relatively short stint of 32 years is that you ignore the words and advice of the older generations at your own peril.

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
I must've missed the bit that says Roundup makes an excellent mixer... For crying out loud this is getting stupid. Let's take a completely irrelevant event and tie it to our cause which is 'must demonise all chemicals because they are made by greedy multinationals at any cost (and by that inference, they could not have done anything at all that could be seen in a positive light'. You know, people will actually be dumber for having read some of the spurious claims in this thread.


Oh so haha? you find the suffering of an 82 year old man that has early Dementia and drank Roundup and nearly died as a result a big joke? well that just goes to show the sort of person that you REALLY are!


Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 13:45

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
You know, people will actually be dumber for having read some of the spurious claims in this thread.

According to this article (http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-...ose-common-good) folk are being proactively taken in that direction by the very corporations that we are talking about in this thread...which is I suspect the opposite perspective to the one you were taking.

I would prefer the term awakened - those who have seen that all we are told is not necessarily for our own good - and could perhaps even be out masquerading as truth but in reality simply an attempt to flog more products...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 13:49

Well fancy that....

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study

(Reuters) - U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.

Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.

Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds.

Benbrook's paper -- published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday -- undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said Benbrook.

Herbicide-tolerant crops were the first genetically modified crops introduced to world, rolled out by Monsanto Co. in 1996, first in "Roundup Ready" soybeans and then in corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready crops are engineered through transgenic modification to tolerate dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

The crops were a hit with farmers who found they could easily kill weed populations without damaging their crops. But in recent years, more than two dozen weed species have become resistant to Roundup's chief ingredient glyphosate, causing farmers to use increasing amounts both of glyphosate and other weedkilling chemicals to try to control the so-called "superweeds."

"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.


Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.

"We're looking at this. Our experts haven't been able to access the supporting data as yet," said Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher.

Benbrook said the annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to genetically modified crops has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.

Similarly, the introduction of "Bt" corn and cotton crops engineered to be toxic to certain insects is triggering the rise of insects resistant to the crop toxin, according to Benbrook.

Insecticide use did drop substantially - 28 percent from 1996 to 2011 - but is now on the rise, he said.

"The relatively recent emergence and spread of insect populations resistant to the Bt toxins expressed in Bt corn and cotton has started to increase insecticide use, and will continue to do so," he said.

Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominate U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and around 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn acres.

"Things are getting worse, fast," said Benbrook in an interview. "In order to deal with rapidly spreading resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides. To stop corn and cotton insects from developing resistance to Bt, farmers planting Bt crops are being asked to spray the insecticides that Bt corn and cotton were designed to displace."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

That last little bit just about sums it all up as far as GM is concerned... farmers planting Bt crops are being asked to spray the insecticides that Bt corn and cotton were designed to displace."
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 14:12

I would point out that I only bought into this argument after YS had posted on this thread a large number of highly emotionally charged, grossly inflaming, luridly illustrated and quite deliberately misleading posts on the supposed diabolical dangers of Roundup and other farm chemicals that then went on to denigrating farmers and farming technology.

Interestingly he didn't seem to even know that Roundup is the chemical, glyphosate.

If one disagrees about using chemicals of any sort and wishs to produce their produce or food with out any chemicals or herbicides, good luck to them.
I certainly have no problems at all with that .
It is in fact quite a desirable situation to be in if you can afford to do that.

And I've been there and done that and have seen and experienced the results or lack of on a farm and industry scale before fherbicides even appeared in the late 1940's.
Others around here have tried many times since to grow chemically free crops on a farm scale over a period of years but have given up and gone back to conventional methods or have gone bankrupt. They are no longer around

But it was no debate with YS, just a full blown highly emotionally charged anti farmer, anti business rant and rave over a number of posts all accompanied by lurid shots of what looks very likely to be the usual heavy anti anything propaganda of Greenpeace and the WWF., all in an effort to convince the casual reader and lurker that these herbicides and chemicals of every type are highly dangerous and should be banned.
It is a standard propaganda technique followed by all the radical left wing environmental outfits to try and cripple industries of all types.

I would also point out once again that if you want to live a chemical free life then go for it.
We are still very fortunate that we can still follow the life style we wish if it is within the law.

However when someone tries to force their personal ideology such as YS was attempting to do with his lurid anti chemical propoganda posts here onto others then there should be no complaints when those others react and react strongly when they sense an extreme ideology being forced, onto them that will try to control how and what they are allowed to do.

The other most noticeable aspect of YS's rants was what he was on about is quite suited as I have already posted, to small personally run areas or back yards.

It is totally unsuited to open grain or farm production regions that cover millions of acres and which, again as I have posted, are forecast to produce 2300 million tonnes of grain this 1012 / 13 season most of which will be consumed by people and their animals.

And that is only grain.
To that there has to be added the hundreds of millions of sheep, goats, beef cattle, and so many other forms of livestock slaughtered for their meat .
Plus the millions of hectares of vegies and fruit and nut production.

In the end, what the consumer around the world wants and will buy, ie; the market, is the ultimate judge of what and how the farmers of the world will operate and what they will use in the production of the world's food.

And if there is a shortage of food on a large scale then all that anti chemical ranting and raving in existence which dominates the first few pages of this thread won't be worth a pinch of the proverbial when the bellies are empty.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 14:20

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
In your 'learned' opinions of course!

What I've learnt over my relatively short stint of 32 years is that you ignore the words and advice of the older generations at your own peril.


Exactly, i am older than you so ignore me at your peril.... smirk


ROFL... yes, that would be extremely remiss of me to think that as a 32 year old, I had the wisdom commonly associated with those older... like say ROM poke

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Oh so haha? you find the suffering of an 82 year old man that has early Dementia and drank Roundup and nearly died as a result a big joke? well that just goes to show the sort of person that you REALLY are!


Oh good on ya... I'm not the one who was so eager to perpetuate the evilness of a chemical based on an incident which meant Roundup was used in a completely contrary manner to the appropriate use as stipulated on the label. Why you would take the obviously very sad case of someone who drank Roundup to push your own barrow is completely beyond me. To clarify, I wasn't laughing at the person who was the subject of your story, I was laughing at you and your desperation to paint a product that you have aligned yourself against in such an ideological fashion. It's like trying to prove that rat bait is dangerous by ingesting it yourself. Well duh! Of course it is! But then again, just like Roundup, rat bait is not designed to be consumed by humans is it???
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 14:42

Then why use it in our soils, where we grow our food? and our bees, natives and honey ones forage at will? ... it does not make sense .... but I think in this one we agree to disagree ... smile
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 14:57

YS, in one post ROM has described you as:

Highly emotionally charged
Grossly inflaming
Posting deliberately misleading posts
Someone who denigrates farmers
Ignorant
Anti farmer
Anti business
A raver
A ranter
An anti chemical ranter and raver (assume this differs from the above)
A propagandist
A radical left winger
Someone trying to cripple business
Someone trying to force an extreme personal ideology on others
A lurid anti chemical poster

So, nice one ROM for keeping on topic and off the personal...not. Calm down mate and stop throwing the abuse anytime someone disagrees with you eh?
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 14:58

Originally Posted By: explorer
Then why use it in our soils, where we grow our food? and our bees, natives and honey ones forage at will? ... it does not make sense .... but I think in this one we agree to disagree ... smile

Always better to disagree than to throw abuse I reckon. Nice post, agree with it entirely smile
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 15:01

Quote:
Interestingly he didn't seem to even know that Roundup is the chemical, glyphosate.

(**insert trademark spiel here..)Roundup is a trademark of the Monsanto corporation, why do you think i use/d the “generic term” glyphosate to allay your fears that i was not just only “hate bashing” poor old innocent Monsanto"
Where did i ever say that i did not know Roundup is the chemical glyphosate ?? Hmmmmm? nice try.....

Originally Posted By: ROM
The other most noticeable aspect of YS's rants was what he was on about is quite suited as I have already posted, to small personally run areas or back yards.


A full scale commercial organic Banana growing enterprise...again nice try...
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
One of them is http://www.eco-banana.com.au/ they work with nature rather than against, they avoid the broad scale kill everything that moves mentality of the chemical industry and prefer the approach of encouraging beneficial insects and other predators to take out the bad bugs.


Here is a good website on commercial organic growing, you might actually learn something from it.
http://www.acs.edu.au/courses/commercial-organic-vegetable-growing-92.aspx

Originally Posted By: ROM
But it was no debate with YS, just a full blown highly emotionally charged anti farmer,

Well that is correct you will not debate, it is either your way (full blown chemical) or no way at all...there is no middle ground where you stand.
There are multitudes of successful organic farms/farmers all over the country that prove you do not have to use chemicals to grow food.
Originally Posted By: ROM
However when someone tries to force their personal ideology such as YS was attempting to do with his lurid anti chemical propoganda posts here onto others then there should be no complaints when those others react and react strongly when they sense an extreme ideology being forced, onto them that will try to control how and what they are allowed to do.


As you do with yours and the absurd statements that you would simply not be able to grow food without using chemicals.



Originally Posted By: ROM

And if there is a shortage of food on a large scale then all that anti chemical ranting and raving in existence which dominates the first few pages of this thread won't be worth a pinch of the proverbial when the bellies are empty.

And here in lies your typical emotive plea that everyone in the world is starving or will be in a few years time (and must use nothing but chemicals and genetically modified crops otherwise the whole of humankind will persih..)..look at how many obese people there are around?
They also made the same statements 20-25 years ago as one of their *excuses* as to why the world need to embrace GMO’S
So nearly 30 years on has GM crops lived up to all the hype that they have touted? well no.
People are still starving as you let us know at every turn...No stop if we genetically modify crops we will alleviate world hunger..
If we use GM g=crops we will use less chemical
“” “” “”” less water.
....................................More profits. (and the list goes on...)
but of course it is all untrue...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 15:25

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
YS, in one post ROM has described you as:

Highly emotionally charged
Grossly inflaming
Posting deliberately misleading posts
Someone who denigrates farmers
Ignorant
Anti farmer
Anti business
A raver
A ranter
An anti chemical ranter and raver (assume this differs from the above)
A propagandist
A radical left winger
Someone trying to cripple business
Someone trying to force an extreme personal ideology on others
A lurid anti chemical poster

So, nice one ROM for keeping on topic and off the personal...not. Calm down mate and stop throwing the abuse anytime someone disagrees with you eh?


Yep, that about sums me up confused grin grin

There are always alternatives in life and other paths to choose. (nothing is ever black and white)
The simple fact is most do not want to change because it may disrupt their “lifestyle”, or heaven forbid the crackpots maybe right.
The most important gift you can give yourself and your children is knowledge, and that there is other ways of doing things other than just the mainstream ideology, technology may be a good thing but it does not always make your life better.

You just have to look at products like Asbestos, back in the day it would have been hailed a a "miracle" product.
It would not have been until years later that a few people started to point fingers and put two and two together that Asbestos may cause health issues, and you can bet sure as eggs they would have been labled as "crackpots" or "they don't know what they are talking about" or "it is probably something else that is causing the problems"

Like i did state in one of my previous post that yes, chemicals do have a place, IF they are used properly, but now it has gotten to the point they are not being used properly and are overused and are simply not working, or people are having to resort to using chemicals that have been banned for decades."
Something has to change (for the better that is)
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 15:49

Bello Boy, i think you and I could have quite a reasonable debate as i think you are open to seeing things in a somewhat different light when you understand the real situation or at least that is what i think have gleaned from your comments.

But I do object very strongly to the slights and gross misrepresentations and the lurid posturings of YS about farming and the use of technology to produce enough food to meet the world's demands,
Note I said "demands" , not trying to force something onto any consumer.

And believe me as price takers in this world unfortunately, farmers do not set the world prices for grain or any other food products. Thats done by the merchants and processors and super markets who always make big profits even if it breaks their suppliers, the farmers. So when a grain merchant or abattoirs or food processor decides to have a look at one's grain or animals they will find everything wrong with them they can to drive down the price.
So a year's work and sweat and the entire year's income for the farmer is always at the mercy of others much further up the food chain. and that is why the age of the Australian farmers is now rising rapidly.

There is no money and little future or incentive for young guys to come into farming as they have the bright lights of the city and earn much more money than they will ever do on the farm and all that by just picking up the pay check without any real stress or fear of another year of failure due to seasons or world markets.
And they don't have to put up with the downright denigrating comments of the radicals intent on forcing their naive idealistic and implausible versions of farming onto them as well.

And so i reacted and strongly and will probably continue to do so as from the point of the farmers what i posted is what most farmers would agree with.

They cop these sorts of vindictive attacks on them all the time from the radical enviro mob and are supposed to take it lying down and when they react then all the attackers get very upset and on their high horse.

I note that YS's comments right from when he started on this highly inflammatory all out war on farming, farmers and the means they use to grow enough food right near the start of this thread , [ and with respect, there would be world wide hunger and mass starvation if we tried to follow the idealistic path of using no herbicides or chemicals to grow food ,] haven't exactly been of a peaceable approach or nature either but of course he's right as all such inflexible radicals always are.

I've been through this craziness a number of times before in my life where some know nothings decide they know all about how farming should be done and then run around and try to force their ideology onto the farming community.
In every case farmers as proffessionals and their advisers and researchers have been there and done that and tried it out long before these do gooders ever get around to even thinking about it.
Aand have either adopted the idea, taken the good bits out and are using them or have tried the claims which are found to be a complete disaster and have to be steered well away from.

Cheers and I hope we can discuss and at least have the farmers listened too to appreciate their problems and position before we cop another burst of lurid blasts about our farming herbicides and the essential role they play in supplying the world with it's essential food instead of just pointlessly arguing
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 17:49

http://unmistakablyfood.com/monsanto-and-agenda-21-the-truth-that-is-hiding-in-plain-sight/

There's a reason for everything. What the article doesn't mention is ICLEI.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/03/2013 19:59


Polluted America: GMO manmade biological threats, plant diseases, germ warfare
In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.

Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil’s fertility is damaged, and crops require large quantities of chemical fertilizers. The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed.

Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Air is polluted with a variety of substances, and there are many large cities in which there are days when the young, the elderly, and those suffering with asthma are warned to remain indoors.

All of these costs are costs imposed on society and ordinary people by corporations that banked profits by not having to take the costs into account. This is the way in which unregulated capitalism works.

Our food itself is polluted with antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides, and glyphosate.

Glyphosate might be the most dangerous development to date. Some scientists believe that glyphosate has the potential to wipe out our main grain crops and now that Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, has approved genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa, maintaining sustainable animal herds for milk and meat could become impossible.

Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy and beef herds. Genetically modified alfalfa could be unsafe for animal feed, and animal products such as milk and meat could become unsafe for human consumption.

On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber outlined the dangers of approving Roundup Ready alfalfa in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. Huber requested that approval be delayed until independent research could evaluate the risks. Vilsack ignored the letter and accommodated Monsanto’s desire for monopoly profits that come from the company’s drive to control the seed supply of U.S. and world agriculture by approving Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Who is Don Huber, and why is his letter important?

Huber is professor emeritus at Purdue University. He has been a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist for a half century. He has an international reputation as a leading authority. In the U.S. military, he evaluated natural and manmade biological threats, such as germ warfare and disease outbreaks and retired with the rank of Colonel. For the USDA he coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee. In other words, he is high up in his scientific profession.

You can read online what Huber told the Secretary of Agriculture. Briefly, the outcome of many years of Roundup Ready GMO corn and soybeans has been a decline in nutritional value, the outbreak of new plant diseases resulting in widespread crop failures, and severe reproductive problems in livestock, with some herds having a spontaneous abortion rate that is too high to maintain a profitable business.

Glyphosate is a powerful biocide. It harms beneficial soil organisms, altering the natural balance in the soil and reducing the disease resistance of crops, thus unleashing diseases that devastate corn, soybean, and wheat crops, and giving rise to a new pathogen associated with premature animal aging and infertility. These developments, Huber told the Agriculture Secretary, “are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.” The evidence seems to be real that genetically modified crops have lost their genetic resistance to diseases that never previously were threats.

There is evidence that the new pathogen is related to a rise in human infertility and is likely having adverse effects on human health of which we are still uninformed. Like fluoride, glyphosate might enter our diet in a variety of ways. For example, the label on a bottle of Vitamin D says, “Other ingredients: soybean oil, corn oil.”

Monsanto disputes Huber’s claims and got support for its position from the agricultural extension services of Iowa State and Ohio State universities. However, the question is whether these are independently funded services or corporate supported, and there is always the element of professional rivalry, especially for funding, which comes mainly from agribusiness.

The Purdue University extension service was more circumspect. On the one hand it admits that there is evidence that supports Huber’s claims: “The claim that herbicides, such as glyphosate, can make plants more susceptible to disease is not entirely without merit. Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders (Babiker et al., 2011; Descalzo et al., 1996; Johal and Rahe, 1984; Larson et al., 2006; Means and Kremer, 2007; Sanogo et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1992)… Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield.”

On the other hand, the Purdue extension service maintains its recommendation for “judicious glyphosate use for weed control.” However, one of Huber’s points is that weeds are developing Roundup resistance. Use has gone beyond the “judicious” level and as glyphosate builds up in soil, its adverse effects increase.

A submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by 26 university entomologists describes the constraints that agribusiness has put on the ability of independent scientists to conduct objective research. The submission, in which the scientists are afraid to reveal their names because of the threat of funding cutoffs, is included as an item in one of the bibliographical references below. Here is the statement:

“The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research. Statement: Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

Monsanto is not only sufficiently powerful to prevent any research other than that which it purchases with its funding, but also Monsanto succeeded last year in blocking with money and propaganda the GMO labeling law in California. I would tell you to be careful what you eat as it can make you ill and infertile, but you can’t even find out what you are eating.

You live in America, which has “freedom and democracy” and “accountable” government and ”accountable” corporations. You don’t need to worry. The government and responsible corporations are taking good care of you. Especially Obama, Vilsack, and Monsanto.

(Source: Global Research)
http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/con...es-germ-warfare
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 12:13

Are you sure you haven't been drinking some of those herbicides YS?.
It couldn't be Roundup as Roundup couldn't mess your brain cells up so much that you take and apparently believe and post an article here from Iran's "Tehran Times" about all those most evil corporations in that "Great Satan" as the Iranian islamic mullahs call it or America as the rest of the world knows it and expect not to be laughed at as completely ? . well !!!..

Nuh! Roundup couldn't do that much damage to brain cells.
Reglone might.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 13:35

INDIAN FARMERS PRODUCE RECORD AMOUNTS OF CROPS, WITHOUT GMOS

For years, much of the news to come from India’s farming regions was dismal. The country was facing an agrarian crisis, and thousands of farmers were committing suicide in the face of dwindling economic prospects. Now it seems the farmers’ luck has turned. The UK newspaper The Guardian recently ran a feature on the “rice revolution” in India, where people have been producing record amounts of rice as well as wheat, potatoes, and other crops. What’s more, they’ve done it without the help of expensive genetically modified (GM) seeds, instead using a technique called System of Rice Intensification (SRI).

WHAT’S THE DEAL?
Since the 1980s, many Indian farmers have purchased GM seeds (mostly seeds for Bacillus thuringiensis, or bt cotton) from big biotech companies such as Monsanto. These seeds supposedly increase the amount of crops produced while reducing the need for pesticides. But for many farmers, GM seeds can be more trouble than they’re worth, and some media outlets have cited the rising cost of GM seeds as the reason for the rash of suicides among impoverished farmers. The New York Times reported that the seeds cost between 700 and 2,000 rupees, or $38 per packet, which is about three to eight times the cost of non-GM seeds. [b]What’s more, some regions where farmers use bt cotton have actually reported significant declinesin productivity. That’s why it came as somewhat of a shock when one farmer in Bihar,[b] India grew 22.4 tons of rice on one hectare of land in 2012, breaking the world record for crop yields. Around the same time, farmers in nearby villages produced unprecedented amounts of potatoes and wheat. How did they do it? They’d all swapped GM seeds for the SRI method, which involves transplanting very young plants into fields, placing them far apart from each other, and keeping the soil dry. Next year, the state of Bihar plans to invest $50 million in SRI.

WHY IT MATTERS
The development of a new, successful agricultural technology is welcome news for Indian farmers, who face the possibility of even more expensive GM seeds in the near future. Monsanto is currently on track to win a Supreme Court case that would allow the company complete control over its seeds, meaning it could charge any price for them.Experts have suggested that India transition to organic and eco-friendly farming methods in order to increase yields and reduce costs. Beyond financial difficulties, critics across the globe have spoken out against theuse of GMOs for years, citing possible ill health effects ranging from allergies to altered DNA in the people who eat them. In response to these concerns, the Indian government passed a bill last month requiring all packaged foods containing GMOs to be labeled. Of course, it’s possible these new agricultural technologies won’t work well for mono-crop agriculture (growing a single crop every year on the same land). On the other hand, it’s possible the tables may turn, and Western farmers may ultimately gain new insights into the most effective farming strategies from the East. Do you think countries, including the U.S., should invest in SRI? Should GMO foods be labeled?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 13:44

Originally Posted By: YS
INDIAN FARMERS PRODUCE RECORD AMOUNTS OF CROPS, WITHOUT GMOS

Absolutely Amazing!
We've done the same here in Australia as well!!
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 14:08

Originally Posted By: ROM
Originally Posted By: YS
INDIAN FARMERS PRODUCE RECORD AMOUNTS OF CROPS, WITHOUT GMOS

Absolutely Amazing!
We've done the same here in Australia as well!!

Of course ORGANICALLY grown!
It just goes to show you then that you can get bigger better Yields without chemicals and without having to mess with nature by using GM seeds!
the link for the story is here.
http://greatist.com/health/india-crop-yields-gmos-022613/
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 14:15

Funny that! I always thought that organically grown stuff didn't use artificial fertilizers or chemicals but there doesn't seem to be any mention in that article that those Indian farmers forewent their usual fertilizers and herbicides and insecticides in achieving those yields.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 14:36

Quote:
.Experts have suggested that India transition to organic and eco-friendly farming methods in order to increase yields and reduce costs

Or maybe it is the fact that The east can do it better than the West some find hard to swallow?

Quote:
On the other hand, it’s possible the tables may turn, and Western farmers may ultimately gain new insights into the most effective farming strategies from the East. Do you think countries, including the U.S., should invest in SRI?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 15:06

All GM Field Trials in India to be Stopped

Are You Being Fed Lies?

You've probably heard that GM crops are safe and represent the "future of food" – a way to increase crop yields and feed the world. (That is, if you've heard anything at all... many people have heard precious little about GM foods, even though they're already in up to 80 percent of processed foods in the United States.)

Well, the authors of the report GMO Myths and Truths3 (who include Michael Antoniou, PhD, a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies, as well as John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GMO testing) took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, and came to the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increase yield potential do not support the claims made at all. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown; they simply aren't true... The authors concluded GM crops:

Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GE crops
Can be toxic, allergenic and less nutritious than their natural counterparts
Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
Do not increase yield potential
Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant "superweeds," compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
Have mixed economic effects
Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on
According to their report, there are three potential sources of adverse health effects from genetically engineered foods:


The genetically modified gene product – for example, the Bt toxin in GM insecticidal crops may be toxic or allergenic
The GM transformation process may produce mutagenic effects, gene regulatory effects, or effects at other levels of biological structure and function that result in new toxins or allergens and/or disturbed nutritional value
Changes in farming practices linked to the use of a genetically modified organism may result in toxic residues – for example, higher levels of crop contamination with the herbicide Roundup are an inevitable result of using GM Roundup Ready® crops

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/30/gm-crop-field-trials.aspx
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 15:26

Originally Posted By: ROM
Are you sure you haven't been drinking some of those herbicides YS?.
It couldn't be Roundup as Roundup couldn't mess your brain cells up so much that you take and apparently believe and post an article here from Iran's "Tehran Times" about all those most evil corporations in that "Great Satan" as the Iranian islamic mullahs call it or America as the rest of the world knows it and expect not to be laughed at as completely ? . well !!!..

Nuh! Roundup couldn't do that much damage to brain cells.
Reglone might.


ROM, you missed the content of Paul Craig Roberts' article and focused instead on the publication's name (oh, and on thinking up yet another ridiculous attack on YS). This next quote is from said article:

Quote:
On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber outlined the dangers of approving Roundup Ready alfalfa in a letter to [US] Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. Huber requested that approval be delayed until independent research could evaluate the risks. Vilsack ignored the letter and accommodated Monsanto’s desire for monopoly profits that come from the company’s drive to control the seed supply of U.S. and world agriculture by approving Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Who is Don Huber, and why is his letter important?

Huber is professor emeritus at Purdue University [Indiana, US]. He has been a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist for a half century. He has an international reputation as a leading authority. In the U.S. military, he evaluated natural and manmade biological threats, such as germ warfare and disease outbreaks and retired with the rank of Colonel. For the USDA he coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee. In other words, he is high up in his scientific profession.


And in case you haven't bothered searching for this yourself here's Huber's letter to Vilsack. Given your background, I would think you'd consider his warning pretty damned worrying. I'd also think you might humbly concede that perhaps he is more of an authority on this subject than you are. (Bold highlights added by me)

Quote:


The Honorable Thomas Vilsack
United States Secretary of Agriculture

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlage experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlage, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data. I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 17:36

You lot are certainly very accomplished in making that quite nice smooth switch from those ever so nasty chemicals to those ever so nasty GMO's.
Whats next in the green's attack on the global food industry that feeds 7 billion humans?
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 18:18

C'mon ROM, I thought you of all people could understand that Roundup Ready GMOs and chemicals are directly linked.

Sometimes I wonder if you are on a payroll...
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 18:41

Are you in favour of releasing the GMO Golden Rice variety for use by Asians in the rice areas?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 22:54

Why? so Monsanto can get an even greater foothold in the market place?
For a traditionally chemical based company, it is now one of the biggest players in the seed market, also buying up smaller seed companies at an alarming rate, killing off the competition now doubt?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/03/2013 23:31

as per one of my previous posts....
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
And so what will happen when this miracle golden rice is introduce? it will wipe out vitamin A deficiency? i highly doubt it!

So in a few years time there will be no such thing as vitamin A deficiency? i highly doubt it!

will they hand the rice out for free? i highly doubt it!

Will the rice be cheaper than traditional rice? i highly doubt it!

All it is is a “foot in the door” for the company to say well,as you can “see” there have been no problems with the roll out of the Golden rice (that they will admit too..) so we can now introduce it to all the other poor deprived markets in the world.....(and then all of the traditional varieties of rice will be lost and again it will be another notch in the belt for the GM industry...)



Quote:
Golden rice is the most prominent example in the global controversy over GM foods, which pits a technology with some risks but incredible potential against the resistance of feel-good campaigning




So even in there own words golden rice is “not safe” as it carries “some risk”, but that is fine as it is only the poorest in society that they will be targeting (at the moment) and i am sure if there are illness/disease or death that could be associated with golden Rice they will be able to blame something else for it......
Posted by: bigwilly

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/03/2013 06:55

This 'debate' is on the knife edge of degenerating into another circular, pointless argument laced with thinly veiled personal attacks; some would argue it's already there.

If you can't argue the point and feel you must resort to these personal attacks, I suggest you walk away as no doubt you have done your dash on the topic.

- Will
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/03/2013 10:51

I keep seeing this claim that oragnic is better than traditional farming practices using chemicals.

There have been several trials using blind and double blind testing.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249848.php

You can be talked in to anything via advertising, blind belief/brainwashing. Terms such as Organic, Natural, wholesome etc have become meaningless in this debate. I have shown that both Organic and Natural are not always safe and any such claims to being healthy for you because something is both Organic and Natural should be treated as suspect in the first instance. For thousands of years humans have used and in some contries still use human faeces has been used as a natural fertilizer. last year we saw exactly what sort of damage this natural and organic fertilzer can do with an outbreak of ecolli killing tens of people across Europe from contaiminated vegetables.

As it has been in the past, will be now and in the future, the strong will prey on the weak and if you are a small company in competition with another company and you go public then expect to be taken over by a larger company if you release more than 50% of your shares. That is called Capitalism and is the very basis of our present ecconomy.

We have no famine tapping us on the shoulder year in year out so you don't feel the pressures to produce enough or die from a lack of nutrition, now if you where in that position you would embrace anything that put food on your table and a holier than thou stance on GM wouldn't last 3 seconds of thought. In other words Organic is a first world "problem". In the second and third worlds they don't have the luxury of these 'problems' they have enough to do trying to feed themselves.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/03/2013 11:52

This is a US based list of some of the foods that contain GM ingredients.. (wonder if it will fit here?)
Baby Food ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Nabisco (Phillip Morris)
-Arrowroot Teething Biscuits
-Infant formula Carnation Infant Formulas(Nestle)
-AlSoy
-Good Start
-Follow-Up
-Follow-Up Soy

Enfamil Infant Formulas (Mead Johnson)
-Enfamil with Iron
-Enfamil Low Iron
-Enfamil A.R.
-Enfamil Nutramigen
-Enfamil Lacto Free
-Enfamil 22
-Enfamil Next step (soy and milk-based varieties)
-Enfamil Pro-Soybee

Isomil Infant Formulas (Abbot Labs)
-Isomil Soy
-Isomil Soy for Diarrhea
-Similac(Abbot Labs)
-Similac Lactose Free
-Similac with Iron
-Similac Low Iron
-Similac Alimentum

Baking ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Aunt Jemima (Quaker)
-Complete Pancake & Waffle Mix
-Buttermilk Pancake & Waffle Mix
-Cornbread Mix
-Easy Mix Coffee Cake

Betty Crocker (General Mills)
-Pie Crust Mix
-Original Pancake Mix
-Complete Pancake Mix
-Buttermilk Complete Pancake Mix
-Muffin Mixes
-Banana Nut
-Lemon Poppy Seed
-Blueberry
-Wild Blueberry
-Chocolate Chip
-Apple Streusel
-Quick Bread Mixes Banana
-Cinnamon Streusel
-Lemon Poppy Seed
-Cranberry Orange
-Gingerbread
-Cookie Mixes Chocolate Chip
-Double Chocolate Chunk
-Sugar
-Peanut Butter

Bisquik (Betty Crocker/General Mills)
-Original
-Reduced Fat
-Shake ‘n Pour Pancake Mix
-Shake ‘n Pour Buttermilk Pancake Mix
-Shake ‘n Pour Blueberry Pancake Mix

Duncan Hines (Aurora Foods)
-Muffin Mixes
-Kellogg’s All-Bran Apple Cinnamon
-Kellogg’s All-Bran Blueberry
-Blueberry
-Blueberry Crumb
-Chocolate Chip

Hungry Jack (Pillsbury)
-Buttermilk Pancake Mix
-Extra Light & Fluffy Pancake Mix (all varieties)
-Jiffy
-Corn Muffin Mix
-Blueberry Muffin Mix
-Raspberry Muffin Mix
-Pie Crust Mix

Mrs. Butterworths (Aurora Foods)
-Complete Pancake Mix
-Buttermilk Pancake Mix

Pepperidge Farms (Campbell’s)
-Buttermilk Pancake Mix
-Pillsbury
-Quick Bread & Muffin Mixes
-Blueberry
-Chocolate Chip
-Banana
-Cranberry
-Lemon Poppyseed
-Nut
-Hot Roll Mix
-Gingerbread

Bakers (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Unsweetened Chocolate
-Semi-Sweet Chocolate
-German Sweet Chocolate
-White Chocolate
-Hershey’s
-Semi-Sweet Baking Chips
-Milk Chocolate Chips
-Mini Kisses
-Nestle
-Toll House Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips
-Milk Chocolate Chips
-White Chocolate
-Butterscotch Chips
-Semi-Sweet Chocolate Baking Bars

Bread ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Holsum (Interstate Bakeries)
-Holsum Thin Sliced
-Roman Meal
-12 Grain
-Round Top
-Home Pride
-Buttertop White
-Buttertop Wheat

Pepperidge Farms (Campbell’s)
-Cinnamon Swirl
-Light Oatmeal
-Light Wheat
-100% Whole Wheat
-Hearty Slices
-7 Grain
-9 Grain
-Crunchy Oat
-Whole Wheat
-Light Side
-Oatmeal
-Wheat
-7 Grain
-Soft Dinner Rolls
-Club Rolls
-Sandwich Buns
-Hoagie Rolls

Thomas’ (Bestfoods)
-English Muffins Original
-Cinnamon Raisin
-Honey Wheat
-Oat Bran
-Blueberry
-Maple French Toast
Toast-r-Cakes Blueberry
Toast-r-Cakes Corn Muffins

Wonder (Interstate Bakeries)
-White Sandwich Bread
-Country Grain
-Buttermilk
-Thin Sandwich
-Light Wheat
-100% Stoneground Wheat
-Fat Free Multigrain
-Premium Potato
-Beefsteak Rye
-Wonder Hamburger Buns

Breakfast ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Kellogg’s
-Pop Tarts (all varieties)
-Pop Tarts Snack Stix (all)
-Nutri-Grain Bars (all)
-Nutri-Grain Fruit Filled Squares (all)
-Nutri-Grain Twists (all)
-Fruit-Full Squares (all)

Nabisco (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Fruit & Grain Bars (all varieties)
-Nature Valley (General Mills)
-Oats & Honey Granola Bars
-Peanut Butter Granola Bars
-Cinnamon Granola Bars

Pillsbury (General Mills)
-Toaster Scrambles & Strudels (all varieties)

Quaker
-Chewy Granola Bars (all varieties)
-Fruit & Oatmeal Bars (all varieties)
-Aunt Jemima Frozen Waffles
-Buttermilk
-Blueberry

Eggo Frozen Waffles (Kellogg’s)
-Homestyle
-Buttermilk
-Nutri-Grain Whole Wheat
-Nutri-Grain Multi Grain
-Cinnamon Toast
-Blueberry
-Strawberry
-Apple Cinnamon
-Banana Bread

Hungry Jack Frozen Waffles (Pillsbury/General Mills)
-Homestyle
-Buttermilk

Cereal ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

General Mills
-Cheerios
-Wheaties
-Total
-Corn Chex
-Lucky Charms
-Trix
-Kix
-Golden Grahams
-Cinnamon Grahams
-Count Chocula
-Honey Nut Chex
-Frosted Cheerios
-Apple Cinnamon Cheerios
-Multi-Grain Cheerios
-Frosted Wheaties
-Brown Sugar & Oat Total
-Basic 4
-Reeses Puffs
-French Toast Crunch

Kellogg’s
-Frosted Flakes
-Corn Flakes
-Special K
-Raisin Bran
-Rice Krispies
-Corn Pops
-Product 19
-Smacks
-Froot Loops
-Marshmallow Blasted Fruit Loops
-Apple Jacks
-Crispix
-Smart Start
-All-Bran
-Complete Wheat Bran
-Complete Oat Bran
-Just Right Fruit & Nut
-Honey Crunch Corn Flakes
-Raisin Bran Crunch
-Cracklin’ Oat Bran

Country Inn Specialties (all varieties)
-Mothers Cereals (Quaker)
-Toasted Oat Bran
-Peanut Butter Bumpers
-Groovy Grahams
-Harvest Oat Flakes
-Harvest Oat Flakes w/Apples & Almonds
-Honey Round Ups

Post (Kraft-Phillip Morris)
-Raisin Bran
-Bran Flakes
-Grape Nut Flakes
-Grape Nut O’s
-Fruit & Fibre date, raisin and walnut
-Fruit & Fibre peach, raisin and almond
-Honey Bunch of Oats
-Honey Nut Shredded Wheat
-Honey Comb
-Golden Crisp
-Waffle Crisp
-Cocoa Pebbles
-Cinna-Crunch Pebbles
-Fruity Pebbles
-Alpha-Bits
-Post Selects Cranberry Almond
-Post Selects Banana Nut Crunch
-Post Selects Blueberry Morning
-Post Selects Great Grains

Quaker
-Life
-Cinnamon Life
-100% Natural Granola
-Toasted Oatmeal
-Toasted Oatmeal Honey Nut
-Oat Bran
-Cap’n Crunch
-Cap’n Crunch Peanut Butter Crunch
-Cap’n Crunch Crunchling Berries

Chocolate ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Cadbury (Cadbury/Hershey’s)
-Mounds
-Almond Joy
-York Peppermint Patty
-Dairy Milk
-Roast Almond
-Fruit & Nut
-Hershey’s
-Kit-Kat
-Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups
-Mr. Goodbar
-Special Dark
-Milk Chocolate
-Kisses
-Symphony

Kraft (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Toblerone (all varieties)
-Mars

-M&M (all varieties)
-Snickers
-Three Musketeers
-Milky Way
-Twix

Nestle
-Crunch
-Milk Chocolate
-Chunky
-Butterfinger
-100 Grand

Carnation (Nestle)

Hot Cocoa Mixes:
-Rich Chocolate
-Double Chocolate
-Milk Chocolate
-Marshmallow Madness
-Mini Marshmallow
-No Sugar

Hershey’s
-Chocolate Syrup
-Special Dark Chocolate Syrup
-Strawberry Syrup

Nestle
-Nesquik
-Strawberry Nesquik

Swiss Miss (ConAgra)
-Chocolate Sensation
-Milk Chocolate
-Marshmallow Lovers
-Marshmallow Lovers Fat Free
-No Sugar Added

Condiments ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Del Monte (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Ketchup
-Heinz
-Ketchup (regular & no salt)
-Chili Sauce
-Cocktail Sauce
-Heinz 57 Steak Sauce

Hellman’s (Bestfoods)
-Real Mayonnaise
-Light Mayonnaise
-Low-Fat Mayonnaise

Hunt’s (ConAgra)
-Ketchup (regular & no salt)
-KC Masterpiece
-Original BBQ sauce
-Garlic & Herb Marinade
-Honey Teriyaki Marinade

Kraft (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Miracle Whip (all varieties)
-Kraft Mayonnaise (all)
-Thick & Spicy BBQ sauces (all varieties)
-Char Grill BBQ sauce
-Honey Hickory BBQ sauce

Nabisco (Nabiso/Phillip Morris)
-A-1 Steak Sauce
Open Pit (Vlasic/Campbells)
-BBQ sauces (all)
-Chi-Chi’s (Hormel)
-Fiesta Salsa (all varieties)
-Old El Paso (Pillsbury)
-Thick & Chunky Salsa
-Garden Pepper Salsa
-Taco Sauce
-Picante Sauce

Ortega (Nestle)
-Taco Sauce
-Salsa Prima Homestyle
-Salsa Prima Roasted Garlic
-Salsa Prima 3 Bell Pepper
-Thick & Chunky Salsa

Pace (Campbells)
-Chunky Salsa
-Picante Sauce

Tostitos Salsa (Frito-Lay/Pepsi)
-All Natural
-All Natural Thick & Chunky
-Roasted Garlic
-Restaurant Style

Cookies ~Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Delicious Brands (Parmalat)
-Animal Crackers
-Ginger Snaps
-Fig Bars
-Oatmeal
-Sugar-Free Duplex
-Honey Grahams
-Cinnamon Grahams
-Fat Free Vanilla Wafers
-English Toffee Heath Cookies
-Butterfinger Cookies
-Skippy Peanut Butter Cookies

Famous Amos (Keebler/Flowers Industries)
-Chocolate Chip
-Oatmeal Raisin
-Chocolate Sandwich
-Peanut Butter Sandwich
-Vanilla Sandwich
-Oatmeal Macaroon Sandwich

Frookies (Delicious Brands/Parmalat)
-Peanut Butter Chunk
-Chocolate Chip
-Double Chocolate
-Frookwich Vanilla
-Frookwich Chocolate
-Frookwich Peanut Butter
-Frookwich Lemon
-Funky Monkeys Chocolate
-Ginger Snaps
-Lemon Wafers

Keebler (Keebler/Flowers Industries)
-Chips Deluxe
-Sandies
-E.L. Fudge
-Soft Batch Chocolate Chip
-Golden Vanilla Wafers
-Droxies
-Vienna Fingers
-Fudge Shoppe Fudge Stripes
-Fudge Shoppe Double Fudge & Caramel
-Fudge Shoppe Fudge Stix
-Fudge Shoppe Peanut Butter Fudge Stix
-Country Style Oatmeal
-Graham Originals
-Graham Cinnamon Crisp
-Graham Chocolate
-Graham Honey Low Fat
-Crème Filled Wafers
-Chocolate Filled Wafers

Nabisco (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Oreo,(all varieties)
-Chips Ahoy!(all varieties)
-Fig Newtons (and all Newtons varities)
-Lorna Doone
-Nutter Butters
-Barnum Animal Crackers
-Nilla Wafers
-Nilla Chocolate Wafers
-Pecanz Shortbread
-Family Favorites Oatmeal
-Famous Wafers
-Fudge Covered Mystic Sticks
-Honey Maid Graham Crackers
-Honey Maid Cinnamon Grahams
-Honey Maid Chocolate Grahams
-Honey Maid Oatmeal Crunch
-Teddy Grahams
-Teddy Grahams Cinnamon
-Teddy Grahams Chocolate
-Teddy Grahams Chocolate Chips
-Café Cremes Vanilla
-Café Crème Cappuccino

Pepperidge Farm (Campbell’s)
-Milano
-Mint Milano
-Chessmen
-Bordeaux
-Brussels
-Geneva
-Chocolate Chip
-Lemon Nut
-Shortbread
-Sugar
-Ginger Men
-Raspberry Chantilly
-Strawberry Verona
-Chocolate Mocha Salzburg
-Chocolate Chunk Chesapeake
-Chocolate Chunk Nantucket
-Chocolate Chunk Sausalito
-Oatmeal Raisin Soft Baked

Sesame Street (Keebler)
-Cookie Monster
-Chocolate Chip
-Chocolate Sandwich
-Vanilla Sandwich
-Cookie Pals
-Honey Grahams
-Cinnamon Grahams
-Frosted Grahams

Snack Wells (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Devil’s Food
-Golden Devil’s Food
-Mint Crème
-Coconut Crème
-Chocolate Sandwich
-Chocolate Chip
-Peanut Butter Chip
-Double Chocolate Chip

Crackers ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Keebler (Keebler/Flowers Industries)
-Town House
-Club
-Munch ‘Ems (all varieties)
-Wheatables
-Zesta Saltines
-Toasteds (Wheat, Onion, Sesame & Butter Crisps)
-Snax Stix (Wheat, Cheddar & original)
-Harvest Bakery (Multigrain, Butter, Corn Bread)

Nabisco (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Ritz (all varieties)
-Wheat Thins (all)
-Wheatsworth
-Triscuits
-Waverly
-Sociables
-Better Cheddars
-Premium Saltines (all)
-Ritz Snack Mix (all)
-Vegetable Flavor Crisps
-Swiss Cheese Flavor Crisps
-Cheese Nips (all)
-Uneeda Biscuits

Pepperidge Farm (Campbell’s)
-Butter Thins
-Hearty Wheat
-Cracker Trio
-Cracker Quartet
-Three Cheese Snack Stix
-Sesame Snack Stix
-Pumpernickel Snack Stix
-Goldfish (original, cheddar, parmesan, pizza, pretzel)
-Goldfish Snack Mix (all)

Red Oval Farms (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Stoned Wheat Thin (all varieties)
-Crisp ‘N Light Sourdough Rye
-Crisp ‘N Light Wheat

Sunshine (Flowers Industries)
-Cheeze-It (original & reduced fat)
-Cheeze-It White Cheddar
-Cheeze-It Party Mix
-Krispy Original Saltines

Frozen Dinners ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Banquet (ConAgra)
-Pot Pies (all varieties)
-Fried Chicken
-Salisbury Steak
-Chicken Nugget Meal
-Pepperoni Pizza Meal

Budget Gourmet (Heinz)
-Roast Beef Supreme
-Beef Stroganoff
-Three Cheese Lasagne
-Chicken Oriental & Vegeatble
-Fettuccini Primavera

Green Giant (Pillsbury)
-Rice Pilaf with Chicken Flavored Sauce
-Rice Medley with Beef Flavored Sauce
-Primavera Pasta
-Pasta Accents Creamy Cheddar
-Create-a-Meals Parmesan Herb Chicken
-Cheesy Pasta and Vegetable
-Beef Noodle
-Sweet & Sour
-Mushroom Wine Chicken

Healthy Choice (ConAgra)
-Stuffed Pasta Shells
-Chicken Parmagiana
-Country Breaded Chicken
-Roast Chicken Breast
-Beef Pot Roast
-Chicken & Corn Bread
-Cheese & Chicken Tortellini
-Lemon Pepper Fish
-Shrimp & Vegetable
-Macaroni & Cheese

Kid Cuisine (ConAgra)
-Chicken Nugget Meal
-Fried Chicken
-Taco Roll Up
-Corn Dog
-Cheese Pizza
-Fish Stix
-Macaroni & Cheese

Lean Cuisine (Stouffer’s/Nestle)
-Skillet Sensations Chicken & Vegetable
-Broccoli & Beef
-Homestyle Beef
-Teriyaki Chicken
-Chicken Alfredo
-Garlic Chicken
-Roast Turkey

-Hearty Portions Chicken Florentine
-Beef Stroganoff
-Cheese & Spinach Manicotti
-Salisbury Steak

-Café Classics Baked Fish
-Baked Chicken
-Chicken a L’Orange
-Chicken Parmesan
-Meatloaf with Whipped Potatoes

-Everyday Favorites Chicken Fettuccini
-Chicken Pie
-Angel Hair Pasta
-Three Bean Chili with Rice
-Macaroni & Cheese

Marie Callenders (ConAgra)
-Chicken Pot Pie
-Lasagna & Meat Sauce
-Turkey & Gravy
-Meat Loaf & Gravy
-Country Fried Chicken & Gravy
-Fettuccini with Broccoli & Cheddar
-Roast Beef with Mashed Potatoes
-Country Fried Pork Chop with Gravy
-Chicken Cordon Bleu

Ore-Ida Frozen Potatoes (Heinz)
-Fast Fries
-Steak fries
-Zesties
-Shoestrings
-Hash Browns
-Tater Tots
-Potato Wedges
-Crispy Crunchies

Rosetto Frozen Pasta (Heinz)
-Cheese Ravioli
-Beef Ravioli
-Italian Sausage Ravioli
-Eight Cheese Stuffed Shells
-Eight Cheese Broccoli Stuffed Shells

Stouffer’s (Nestle)
-Family Style Favorites Macaroni & Cheese
-Stuffed Peppers
-Broccoli au Gratin
-Meat Loaf in Gravy
-Green Bean & Mushroom Casserole

-Homestyle Meatloaf
-Salisbury Steak
-Chicken Breast in Gravy

-Hearty Portions Salisbury Steak
-Chicken Fettucini
-Meatloaf with Mashed Potatoes
-Chicken Pot Pie

Swanson (Vlasic/Campbells)
-Meat Loaf
-Fish & Chips
-Salisbury Steak
-Chicken Nuggets
-Hungry Man Fried Chicken
-Roast Chicken
-Fisherman’s Platter
-Pork Rib

Voila! (Bird’s Eye/Agri-Link Foods)
-Chicken Voila! Alfredo
-Chicken Voila! Garlic
-Chicken Voila! Pesto
-Chicken Voila! Three Cheese
-Steak Voila! Beef Sirloin
-Shrimp Voila! Garlic

Weight Watchers (Heinz)
-Smart Ones Fiesta Chicken
-Basil Chicken
-Ravioli Florentine
-Fajita Chicken
-Roasted Vegetable Primavera

Energy Bars & Drinks ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Power Bars

Power Bar (Nestle)
-Oatmeal Raisin
-Apple Cinnamon
-Peanut Butter
-Vanilla Crisp
-Chocolate Peanut Butter
-Mocha
-Banana
-Wild Berry
-Harvest Bars Apple Crisp
-Blueberry
-Chocolate Fudge Brownie
-Strawberry
-Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip

Drink Mixes

Carnation Instant Breakfast Mix (Nestle)
-Creamy Milk Chocolate
-Classic Chocolate
-French Vanilla
-Strawberry
-Café Mocha

Heat & Serve Meals ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Chef Boyardee (ConAgra)
-Beefaroni
-Macaroni & Cheese
-Mini Ravioli
-ABC’s & 123′s

Dinty Moore (Hormel)
-Beef Stew
-Turkey Stew
-Chicken & Dumplings
-Hormel
-Chili with Beans
-Chili No Beans
-Vegetarian Chili with Beans

Kids’ Kitchen (Hormel)
-Spaghetti Rings with Meatballs
-Macaroni & Cheese
-Pizza Wedges with 3 Cheese

Franco-American (Campbell’s)
-Spaghetti O’s
-Mini Ravioli
-Power Rangers Pasta in Sauce

Meat & Dairy Alternatives ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Loma Linda(Worthington/Kellogg’s*)
-Meatless Chik Nuggest

Morningstar (Worthington/Kellogg’s*)
-Harvest Burger
-Better ‘n Burgers
-Garden Veggie Patties
-Grillers Burgers
-Black Bean Burger
-Chicken Patties

Natural Touch (Worthington/Kellogg’s*)
-Garden Vegetable Pattie
-Black Bean Burger
-Okra Pattie
-Lentil Rice Loaf
-Nine Bean Loaf

Worthington (Worthington/Kellogg’s*)
-Vegetarian Burger
-Savory Slices

Dairy Alternatives

Nutra Blend Soy Beverage(Bestfoods)
-Original
-Vanilla
-Apple
-Orange
*A company letter states that they are in the process of converting to non-genetically modified “proteins” in all products.

Meal Mixes & Sauce Packets ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Betty Crocker (General Mills)
-Garden Vegetable Pilaf
-Creamy Herb Risotto
-Garlic Alfredo Fettuccini
-Bowl Appetit Cheddar Broccoli
-Macaroni & Cheese
-Pasta Alfredo

Knorr (Bestfoods)
-Mushroom Risotto Italian Rice
-Broccoli au Gratin Risotto
-Vegetable Primavera Risotto
-Risotto Milanese
-Original Pilf
-Chicken Pilaf
-Rotini with 4 Cheese
-Bow Tie Pasta with Chicken & Vegetable
-Penne with Sun-Dried Tomato
-Fettuccini with Alfredo
-Classic Sauce Packets Hollandaise

Béarnaise
-White
-Brown
-Lemon Herb
-Mushroom Brown
-Onion
-Roasted Chicken
-Roasted Pork
-Roasted Turkey

Pasta Sauce Packets Alfredo
-Four Cheese
-Carbonara
-Pesto
-Garlic Herb

Lipton (Unilever)
-Rice & Sauce Packets Chicken Broccoli
-Cheddar Broccoli
-Beef Flavor
-Spanish
-Chicken Flavor
-Creamy Chicken
-Mushroom

-Sizzle & Stir Skillet Supers Lemon Garlic Chicken & Rice
-Spanish Chicken & Rice
-Herb Chicken & Bowties
-Cheddar Chicken & Shells

Near East (Quaker)
-Spicy Tomato Pasta Mix
-Roasted Garlic & Olive Oil Pasta Mix
-Falafel Mix
-Lentil Pilaf
-Couscous
-Tomato Lentil
-Parmesan
-Toasted Pinenut
-Herb Chicken
-Broccoli & Cheese
-Curry

Pasta Roni (Quaker)
-Fettuccini Alfredo
-Garlic Alfredo
-Angel Hair Pasta with Herbs
-Angel Hair Pasta with Parmesan Cheese
-Angel Hair Pasta with Tomato Parmesan
-Angel Hair Pasta Primavera
-Garlic & Olive Oil with Vermicelli

Rice-a-Roni (Quaker)
-Rice Pilaf
-Beef
-Chicken
-Fried Rice
-Chicken & Broccoli
-Long Grain & Wild Rice
-Broccoli au Gratin

Uncle Ben’s (Mars)
-Long Grain & Wild Rice (Original & with Garlic)
-Brown & Wild Rice Mushroom
-Country Inn Mexican Fiesta
-Country Inn Oriental Fried Rice
-Country Inn Chicken & Vegetable
-Country Inn Chicken & Broccoli
-Natural Select Chicken & Herb
-Natural Select Tomato & Basil
-Chef’s Recipe Chicken & Vegetable Pilaf
-Chef’s Recipe Beans & Rice
-Chef’s Recipe Broccoli Rice

Frozen Pizza ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Celeste (Aurora Foods)
-Supreme
-Pepperoni
-Vegetable
-Four Cheese
-Deluxe
-Cheese

Tombstone (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Pepperoni
-Supreme
-Sausage & Pepperoni
-Extra Cheese
-Stuffed Crust
-Three Cheese

Totino’s (Pillsbury)
-Crisp Crust
-Pepperoni
-Combination

Snack Foods ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Act II Microwave Popcorn (ConAgra)
-Butter
-Extreme Butter
-Corn on the Cob

Frito-Lay* (PepsiCo)
-Lays Potato Chips (all varieties)
-Ruffles Potato Chips (all)
-Doritos Corn Chips (all)
-Tostitos Corn Chips (all)
-Fritos Corn Chips (all)
-Cheetos (all)
-Rold Gold Pretzels (all)
-Cracker Jack Popcorn

Healthy Choice Microwave Popcorn (ConAgra)
-Organic Corn (soy/canola oils)

Mothers Corn Cakes (Quaker)
-Butter Pop

Orville Redenbacher Microwave Popcorn (ConAgra)
-Original
-Homestyle
-Butter
-Smart Pop
-Pour Over
-Orville Redenbacher Popcorn Cakes
-Chocolate
-Caramel
-Orville Redenbacher Mini Popcorn Cakes
-Butter
-Peanut Caramel
-Chocolate Peanut

Pop Secret Microwave Popcorn (Betty Crocker/General Mills)
-Natural
-Homestyle
-Jumbo Pop
-Extra Butter
-Light
-94% Fat Free Butter

Pringles (Procter & Gamble)
-Original
-Low Fat
-Pizza-licious
-Sour Cream & Onion
-Salt & Vinegar
-Cheezeums
-Quaker Rice Cakes
-Peanut Butter
-Chocolate Crunch
-Cinnamon Streusel
-Mini
-Chocolate
-Ranch
-Sour Cream & Onion
-Apple Cinnamon
-Caramel Corn
-Quaker Corn Cakes
-White Cheddar
-Caramel Corn
-Strawberry Crunch
-Caramel Chocolate Chip
*Frito has informed its corn and potato suppliers that the company wishes to avoid GE crops, but acknowledges that canola or other oils and ingredients in its products may be from GE sources.

Soda & Juice Drinks ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Coca Cola (Coca Cola)
Sprite
Cherry Coke
Barq’s Root Beer
Minute Maid Orange
Minute Maid Grape
Surge
Ultra
PepsiCo
Pepsi
Slice
Wild Cherry Pepsi
Mug Root Beer
Mountain Dew
Cadbury/Schweppes
7-Up
Dr. Pepper
A & W Root Beer
Sunkist Orange
Schweppes Ginger Ale

Capri Sun juices (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Red Berry
-Surfer Cooler
-Splash Cooler
-Wild Cherry
-Strawberry Kiwi
-Fruit Punch
-Pacific Cooler
-Strawberry
-Orange
-Grape

Fruitopia (Coca Cola)
-Grape Beyond
-Berry Lemonade
-Fruit Integration
-Kiwiberry Ruckus
-Strawberry Passion
-Tremendously Tangerine

Fruit Works (PepsiCo)
-Strawberry Melon
-Peach Papaya
-Pink Lemonade
-Apple Raspberry

Gatorade (Quaker)
-Lemon Lime
-Orange
-Fruitpunch
-Fierce Grape
-Frost Riptide Rush

Hawaiian Punch (Procter & Gamble)
-Tropical Fruit
-Grape Geyser
-Fruit Juicy Red
-Strawberry Surfin

Hi-C (Coca Cola)
-Pink Lemonade
-Watermelon Rapids
-Boppin’ Berry
-Tropical Punch
-Smashin’ Wildberry
-Blue Cooler
-Blue Moon Berry
-Orange
-Cherry

Kool Aid (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Blastin’ Berry Cherry
-Bluemoon Berry
-Kickin’ Kiwi Lime
-Tropical Punch
-Wild Berry Tea
-Ocean Spray
-Cranberry Juice Cocktail
-Cranapple
-CranGrape
-CranRaspberry
-CranStrawberry
-CranMango

Squeeze It (Betty Crocker/General Mills)
-Rockin’ Red Puncher
-Chucklin’ Cherry
-Mystery 2000

Sunny Delight (Procter & Gamble)
-Sunny Delight Original
-Sunny Delight With Calcium Citrus Punch
-Sunny Delight California Style Citrus Punch
Tang juices (Kraft/Phillip Morris)
-Orange Uproar
-Fruit Frenzy
-Berry Panic

Tropicana Twisters (PepsiCo)
-Grape Berry
-Apple Raspberry Blackberry
-Cherry Berry
-Cranberry Raspberry Strawberry
-Pink Grapefruit
-Tropical Strawberry
-Orange Cranberry
-Orange Strawberry Banana

V-8 (Campbells)
-V8 Tomato Juices (all varieties)
-Strawberry Kiwi
-Strawberry Banana
-Fruit Medley
-Berry Blend
-Citrus Blend
-Apple Medley
-Tropical Blend
-Island Blend

Soup ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Campbell’s
-Tomato
-Chicken Noodle
-Cream of Chicken
-Cream of Mushroom
-Cream of Celery
-Cream of Broccoli
-Cheddar Cheese
-Green Pea
-Healthy Request Chicken Noodle
-Cream of Chicken
-Cream of Mushroom
-Cream of Celery
-Campbell’s Select Roasted Chicken with Rice

-Grilled Chicken with Sundried Tomatoes
-Chicken Rice
-Vegetable Beef

-Chunky Beef with Rice
-Hearty Chicken & Vegetable
-Pepper Steak
-Baked Potato with Steak & Cheese
-New England Clam Chowder

-Soup to Go Chicken Noodle
-Chicken Rice
-Garden Vegetable
-Vegetable Beef & Rice

Simply Home Chicken Noodle
Chicken Rice
Garden Vegetable
Vegetable Beef with Pasta

Healthy Choice (ConAgra)
-Country Vegetable
-Fiesta Chicken
-Bean & Pasta
-Chicken Noodle
-Chicken with Rice
-Minestrone

Pepperidge Farms (Campbell’s)
-Corn Chowder
-Lobster Bisque
-Chicken & Wild Rice
-New England Clam Chowder
-Crab Soup

Progresso (Pillsbury)
-Tomato Basil
-Chicken Noodle
-Chicken & Wild Rice
-Chicken Barley
-Lentil
-New England Clam Chowder
-Zesty Herb Tomato
-Roasted Chicken with Rotini
-Fat Free Minestrone
-Fat Free Chicken Noodle
-Fat Free Lentil
-Fat Free Roast Chicken

Tomatoes & Sauces ~ Genetically Engineered Ingredients

Del Monte (Nabisco/Phillip Morris)
-Tomato Sauce

Five Brothers Pasta Sauces (Lipton/Unilever)
-Summer Vegetable
-Five Cheese
-Roasted Garlic & Onion
-Tomato & Basil

Healthy Choice Pasta Sauces (ConAgra)
-Traditional
-Garlic & Herb
-Sun-Dried Tomato & Herb

Hunts (ConAgra)
-Traditional Spaghetti Sauce
-Four Cheese Spaghetti Sauce
-Tomato Sauce
-Tomato Paste

Prego Pasta Sauces (Campbells)
-Tomato, Basil & Garlic
-Fresh Mushroom
-Ricotta Parmesan
-Meat Flavored
-Roasted Garlic & Herb
-Three Cheese
-Mini-Meatball
-Chicken with Parmesan

Ragu Sauces (Lipton/Unilever)
-Old World Traditional
-Old World with Meat
-Old World Marinara
-Old World with Mushrooms
-Ragu Robusto Parmesan & Romano
-Ragu Robusto Roasted Garlic
-Ragu Robusto Sweet Italian Sausage
-Ragu Robusto Six Cheese
-Ragu Robusto Tomato, Olive Oil & Garlic
-Ragu Robusto Classic Italian Meat
-Chunky Garden Style Super Garlic
-Chunky Garden Style Garden Combo
-Chunky Garden Style Tomato, Garlic & Onion
-Chunky Garden Style Tomato, Basil & Italian Cheese
-Pizza Quick Traditional
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/03/2013 12:47

You have to wonder when a company that is purely only profit driven starts claiming that the have the starving masses best interests at heart and want to do something to “alleviate world hunger.”
So what do they do? the create a genetically modified corn seed that they then can patent....but they don’t stop there they then “target” the other of the planets “staple” or most consumed crops, Soy, Cotton,canola, then after they have the patent they have the rights to that seed, so they can sell it at a much higher price (which they do) they make the purchaser sign a contract stating they they will only exclusively use Monsanto derived products, like herbicides and fertilizers and so on (another coincidence was that Monsanto’s patent for Glyphosate was due to run out in the proceeding years, so it is another way to ensure that they don’t loose any sales..), once the crop is harvested Monsanto is the entitled to a “technology fee” for every hectare of crop that the farmer then harvest (hmmm nice little money earner for them so far? no wonder they want to Genetically Modify crops as it assures them that they make (more)money! and it is in the contract!)

Another thing with GM seeds is once the farmer has harvested them they are no longer able to save their own seed that they have grown (and as they have done for generations beforehand) the seed now belongs to Monsanto as they own the patent to the seed! and if a farmer does keep and re-sow the seed for next year, Monsanto will have their “suits” come around with the intentions to sue the Farmer.

Hey but why stop there? what about the competition?Seems Monsanto even sued their number one competition (and won by the way) for patent breaches.
Quote:
Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won


Quote:
Monsanto also purchased Semenis which was the world’s largest seed company and now they own thousands of conventional seed companies in addition to their GMO seed business. Monsanto now owns 40% of the conventional seed market in the US and 20% of the worldwide market

You have to wonder why one company would want to Monopolize the planets seed/ food industry? after all food is the driving force for every creature on the planet, control the food control the people.




Monsanto tried to Patent a way to breed pigs, but there patent application was rejected, so funnily enough they no longer have an interest in pigs... (they can’t patent so therefore can not Monopolize the market)
They have done it with cows to “improve” the amount of milk produced... but in the end common sense won out and it was taken of the market.....Like the GM potato and tomato ( but then again it will appear again somewhere else down the track, where they can try and force it on some other poor starving market.
Wheat is another crop in their sights...with trials already in place in various locations across Australia (another coincidence? Monsanto have been buying up Australian seed/Wheat interests also)

Where will it all stop? next on their hit list is....
Cucumber
Tomato (oh here it is again...)
Lettuce
broccoli

These are just some of the products already in the working stages of development and even now companies are seeking approval for the release of a genetically modified Salmon onto the market...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/03/2013 17:05

And this is one of the reasons why we bring theses issues to light.....

Historic Ruling Convicts Two of Three Defendants for Poisoning Neighborhood with Pesticides

(Cordoba, Argentina) For twelve years the citizens of a small neighborhood outside Cordoba have been dealing with disease, cancer, pain, and death in abnormally large quantities. The primary cause has been known for quite some time to be due to the application of the pesticides glyphosate and endosulfan to nearby GMO soy fields, but due to legal circumstances the citizens have been unable to do anything about it until now. As things continued to worsen, the charges brought against the two farmers and their pilot (producer Edgardo Parra and pilot Pancello, producer Jorge Alberto Gabrielli was acquitted) were finally given recognition after there were a recorded 169 cases of cancer including 30 deaths due to the contamination. Also joining the group, called as a witness, was a mother dealing with her child’s paralysis due to these same toxins since not all the cancer cases and deaths have been fully tallied and/or investigated.

Endosulfan is a highly controversial pesticide considered acutely toxic and banned by most major governments around the world, glyphosate has been generally regarded as safe by most but has recently come under question due to recent studies , but although they are both currently legal in Argentina their application in these neighborhoods and fields was unauthorized. Both pesticides are recognized as carcinogens. Tragically the town had to have more than 150 casualties before action was taken, however the case’s ruling has changed the atmosphere of not only Argentina’s legal environment, but was the first and only time that criminal charges have been brought against persons in the agriculture industry in the entire South American continent. This case creates a new precedent by which all future cases in the region will be compared and both the charges and the consequences brought against future transgressors is only likely to increase rapidly in the years to come.
Story
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 15/03/2013 14:23

Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health
GMOs, Health & Disease — by Jeffrey M. Smith January 26, 2011

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today.


The diseased field on the right had
glyphosate applied the previous season.
Photo by Don Huber
While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.
The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber

Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.



Sudden Death Syndrome is more
severe at the ends of rows, where
Roundup dose is strongest.
Photo by Amy Bandy.
This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).
The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts
plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens
kill the plant. Control (C) shows
normal growth.
“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins


Photo by Robert Kremer
Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.
Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.
Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications
Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.



Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

Full article.
http://permaculture.org.au/2011/01/26/mo...-animal-health/
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 15/03/2013 20:13

Originally Posted By: SBT
I keep seeing this claim that oragnic is better than traditional farming practices using chemicals.

There have been several trials using blind and double blind testing.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249848.php

You can be talked in to anything via advertising, blind belief/brainwashing. Terms such as Organic, Natural, wholesome etc have become meaningless in this debate. I have shown that both Organic and Natural are not always safe and any such claims to being healthy for you because something is both Organic and Natural should be treated as suspect in the first instance.

...

We have no famine tapping us on the shoulder year in year out so you don't feel the pressures to produce enough or die from a lack of nutrition, now if you where in that position you would embrace anything that put food on your table and a holier than thou stance on GM wouldn't last 3 seconds of thought. In other words Organic is a first world "problem". In the second and third worlds they don't have the luxury of these 'problems' they have enough to do trying to feed themselves.


So the questions are, who benefits from the findings of that study? Who did the study and how are they linked to who benefits from the findings? Well, whaddya know. The study under discussion is one carried out at Stanford University. George Poste, on Monsanto's Board of Directors is also highly placed as a Distinguished Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution is an influential voice in American public policy. And you only need google Monsanto's government ties to see Mr Poste is not on his own.

Nothing is what it seems. You were quite right in saying "You can be talked in to anything via advertising, blind belief/brainwashing."

If people don't start taking responsibility for growing their own natural wholesome organic food then you're right, they won't really know if what they're buying is the real deal. But it is only going to take something as simple as the trucks to stop coming to fill the supermarket shelves to show people just how close to suffering famine they really are, no matter what views they have on growing methods. I've read there's food enough for three days in a supermarket, and that a panic buying situation can empty them in a matter of hours. Will you be asking for a bit of organic food from your gardening neighbours I wonder? Got a bit stored away for cyclones no doubt, but what if the trucks just don't come?

Have to laugh though at this from your link "The scientists stressed that there were no health studies which concentrated on the long-term health outcomes of people who consumed organic foods versus conventional foods. Of the over 200 reports they assessed, the time-spans ranged from two days to a maximum of 24 months. Put simply, we still have no idea whether organic foods are better than conventional foods over the long term."

What, they couldn't find an Amish community to include in their study? Those funny old fashioned types who use time-tested, organic methods to grow wholesome nutritious food. The same ones proved by others who have studied them to be in far better health and whose cancer rates are far lower than their modern-living countrymen. And did you see that clever switch?..."whether organic foods are better than conventional". Umm...in my mind conventional IS organic. What a funny world this is.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 16/03/2013 10:00

You have to wonder we a study is released “attacking” organic foods, makes you think straight away who is funding them? and what benefit could they get out of such a report?
try and erode the current support for Organic or NON GM food supports? as they are currently the major stumbling block to dominating the GM food supply.


Stanford’s Monsanto Ties Cast Doubt on Organic Food Study

The genetically modified crop, pesticide and chemical giant Monsanto has drawn the unbridled rage of protesters worldwide for their relentless bid to control the seed and food supply, and for their crops’ adverse health effects and cross contamination of their organic counterparts.

The company and its competitors such as Dow Chemical and DuPont are also heavily embedded within the academic scene and among decision makers in government, with the goal of changing the narrative on GMO crops and hiding the truth from consumers.

A recent study downplaying the positive benefits of organic food made waves recently as it was picked up by several major media outlets. But since its release earlier this week, it has also come under scrutiny because of possible conflicts of interest, as well as the rush to judgment in the big media headlines placed on their stories.
Here is an example of the Stanford organic study with a headline amplifying the alleged similarities between organic and “conventional” (pesticide-laced) produce from the Washington Post. And here is another example of a headline that actually highlights the benefits shown by organic food in the same study, completely flipping the script.

These two examples show just how important it is to have control of the flow of information, and right now, the big pesticide and big food companies have much more control, although they’re losing their grip.

It also shows how important it is to look beyond the headlines, and for media outlets to do more research instead of simply passing along press releases with vested interests in one side or the other as news, and as the be-all, end-all.

Stanford University is one of the best in the country but there are also conflicts of interest that the mainstream media has not reported closely on. For example, consider that George H. Poste is a Monsanto board member and also a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution (wide-ranging think tank) at the same university, as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. His ties to Monsanto and influence at the university should be investigated, but it seems as if outlets such as the Post and New York Times, which ran a column essentially calling organic food consumers “cult members,” have already made up their minds about what the study supposedly represents.

There are also questionable ties to former big tobacco “scientists” as well as Cargill, which has given several millions to Stanford and has a big financial interest in stopping the organic and GMO-free movements.

With the timing of the study coinciding with one of the biggest food freedom votes in many years, the California Prop 37 for GMO food labeling, these and other conflicts of interest must be examined in full detail.

And with Monsanto, Cargill and other interests working behind the scenes at Stanford, it’s safe to say the recent organic food study should be taken with a huge grain of salt, especially considering that it runs contrary to the many other studies that affirm better nutrition from organic food grown in more rich soil that hasn’t been assaulted for years with chemical pesticides.

Nicholas Tomasi is an AP-Award winning sports journalist and author turned health researcher. He currently runs AltHealthWORKS, a website dedicated to alternative medicine, organic food and the GMO-free movement.

It also has to make you wonder?
Quote:
So while conventional food production allows for the addition of cheap, synthetic and often controversial ingredients that have been disallowed, banned or never permitted for use in developed countries around the world, organic food carries the burden of having to prove that its products are safe


You have to prove that organically grown foods are safe? yet is is completely fine to alter the genetic make up of a plant, so the plant makes it's own pesticides,insecticides has virus resistant gene markers inserted into it, so therefore could potentially be the breeding ground for any number of new viruses, but the GM product at the end does not have to be tested or does not have to prove it is safe? all they have to do is tell the regulator that we think the food is safe and that it still resembles the original product and it will be passed to be released onto the market without any testing done what so ever.......(well only the poor unsuspecting public) now haw sad is that.


At least some countries have the foresight....
Peru Passes Monumental Ten Year Ban on Genetically Engineered Foods

In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a full decade before coming up for another review. Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision 3 years after the decree was written despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization due largely to the pressure from farmers that together form the Parque de la Papa in Cusco, a farming community of 6,000 people that represent six communities. They worry the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will compromise the native species of Peru, such as the giant white corn, purple corn and, of course, the famous species of Peruvian potatoes. Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the ”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”

While the ban will curb the planting and importation of GMOs in the country, a test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) at the time of the ban’s implementation found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants. ”Research by ASPEC confirms something that Peruvians knew all along: GM foods are on the shelves of our markets and wineries, and consumers buy them and take them into their homes to eat without knowing it. Nobody tells us, no one says anything, which involves a clear violation of our right to information,” Cáceres told Gestión. GMOs are so prevalent in the Americas that it is virtually impossible to truly and completely block them, whether through pollination or being sneaked in as processed foods.

“There is an increasing consensus among consumers that they want safe, local, organic fresh food and that they want the environment and wildlife to be protected,” wrote Walter Pengue from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, in a recent statement concerning GMOs in South America. “South American countries must proceed with a broader evaluation of their original agricultural policies and practices using the precautionary principle.”

Note: This decree was signed into effect on April 15th 2011
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03...gineered-foods/
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 16/03/2013 15:56

That post about livestock nutrition and glyphosphate is the biggest load of BS I have ever read!! Talk about jump to confusions. I'd encourage anyone wondering about the contents of that post to completely disregard it. In a nutshell, the author has seen a problem and automatically linked glyphosphate to it as the root cause. Animal nutrition is more complicated than that, with all sorts of interdependencies that can affect absorption and utilisation. It's not as simple as the post suggests.
Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 16/03/2013 17:13

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/03/08/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 08:26

THERE are about eight million reasons why Greenpeace should be charged with a crime against humanity.

That’s the number of people, all of them children, who have died as a result of vitamin A deficiency and could have been saved if Greenpeace had not blocked their access to golden rice. Many more have become blind.

Golden rice, named for its yellow appearance similar to saffron rice, has been genetically modified to contain beta-carotene, the source of vitamin A. Regular white rice does not provide this vital nutrient and with three billion people reliant on rice, there are many cases of deficiency. A study reported in the British medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of five each year.

A single bowl of golden rice can supply 60 per cent of a child's daily requirement of vitamin A.

In a few months it will be available for planting to farmers in the Philippines. Bangladesh and Indonesia have indicated they are ready to accept golden rice in the wake of the Philippines' decision and other nations, including India, are considering planting it.

Golden rice could have been grown as long ago as 1999, but its development and cultivation have been vehemently opposed by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A and who argued that it would turn farmers in the developing world into tools of global capitalism.

Chief among these campaigners has been Greenpeace.

In fact, all rights to golden rice were relinquished long ago and nobody, apart from farmers, will make money out of it. But that is not enough for Greenpeace. In their view, once you start allowing genetically modified (GM) crops, even free ones that save lives, it’s a downhill slide.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 08:27

Even now its opposition is continuing. In its latest statement, Greenpeace says golden rice is “neither needed nor necessary,” and calls instead for supplementation and fortification, which are described as “cost-effective".

Apparently this means handing out vitamin pills.

Just a few months ago some researchers published a nutritional study showing the beta-carotene in golden rice is easily absorbed. They carried out the study among children in China. Greenpeace immediately called it a scandal and accused the researchers of using the children as guinea pigs. The Chinese government reacted by sacking the three Chinese co-authors of the study.

Greenpeace now calls golden rice a “failure,” because it “has been in development for almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency".

That failure is due almost entirely to relentless opposition to GM foods by Greenpeace and other well off Westerners far removed from the risks of actual vitamin A deficiency.

In the 20-odd years in which GM crops have been grown, there have been no documented human health effects from them. Even the oft-repeated claim of harm to Monarch butterflies has been shown to be negligible.

So finally golden rice is set to be grown in countries where it will save lives. But for the eight million children who died from vitamin A deficiency while it was coming, it is too late.

A crime against humanity is defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to include extermination when knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. An attack might include denial of life-saving measures.

Greenpeace has been openly denying the benefits of golden rice for at least 15 years, with utter disregard for the science and in full knowledge of the impact of vitamin A deficiency.

The consequences have been catastrophic - and it is time Greenpeace was held accountable.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 08:28

think weve been over this before with good debate but in case you missed it
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 08:37

24d got mentioned above as a bonifide farmer 4000 acres wheat 2000 canola, peas and oats and vetch making another 1500 acres 24d is basically not used anymore in australia.

studied my glyphosate usage over last 15 yrs despite increasing crop acres usage is down rotating chems and using other methods

get a little miffed with some of the misinformation here as farmers are custodians of the land and strive to improve always

and gm crops i have no need to use them yet but farmers should have the option farmers will not all of a sudden grow grow fence to fence gm crops its just another management tool and we cant in SA anyway

have a pleasant day and enjoy your sunday roast with al the trimming bought to you by a farmer somewere doing the right thing
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 10:11

24d may not be used anymore in Aust but if companies like Monsanto and Dow have their way, it wont be ling before it is being used on a braodscale again.

You only have to look to the US where there are so many area's infested with super weeds because of GM crops and overuse of Glyphosate.
So what are they now resorting to? the are realising a new variety of GM crops that are 24d resistant, or in other words they are designed to be completely covered in 24d (and at the end of the day the consumer will eat this produce!)

I'm not claiming all farmers are the problem and that they are all the "devil" i know some farmers that are now planting soybeans as a follow crop to boost nitrogen in their soils (and it also reduces their needs for chemical fertilizers and saves them money) as well as other methods to reduce the amount of chemicals reduced on the farm and i applaud that, it is just they "chemicals are the only answer to growing food" mentality that some have does not sit well with me, and like everything there is always another way of doing something.

So you obviously as a farmer do not use 24d, why is it not used so much in Australia any more? too dangerous?
So would that not concern you that a chemical that has been banned may soon be coming back into use again?

You cannot apply a blanket approach to Greenpeace either (at least someone is looking out for people, rather than just the greedy corporations) it is like blaming the people who are starving for being poor, there could be any number of reasons for there being vitamin A deficiencies in people, and plenty of other options to solve the deficiency than to just claim that the only option is to genetically modify something to over come the problem.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 10:25

its use is basically restricted to certain months due to drift farmers are aware of the limitations i take easy way out and choose not use

i could point you to many usa or canadian farm forums were farmers talk amongst themselves in a easy talk envirnment without farmer bashing trolls and 24d isnt used that much

some of you guys think as farmers we have limited intelligence and are like lemmings when it come to gm its not the case as i stated i dont need the technology yet on my farm but the day i see it has a role i would like choice to use it

someone mentioned above glypho and bees its not the case actually it was when another chemical was mixed with the glypho that caused the problem, some of the fine details gets missed in all the rhetoric

i read you posts yas and read this forum alot but choose not to post to much as we all get demonized rom speaks for alot of us in a more articulate way, if i thought my input was relevant i would post more
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 12:00

It may not be used much now, but it will increase of the big biotechs get their way.
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
'Agent Orange Corn' Debate Rages As Dow Seeks Approval Of New Genetically Modified Seed

WASHINGTON -- A new kind of genetically modified crop under the brand name of "Enlist" -- known by its critics as "Agent Orange corn" -- has opponents pushing U.S. regulators to scrutinize the product more closely and reject an application by Dow AgroSciences to roll out its herbicide-resistant seeds.

The corn has been genetically engineered to be immune to 2,4-D, an ingredient used in Agent Orange that some say could pose a serious threat to the environment and to human health. Approval by the United States Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency would allow farmers to spray it far and wide without damaging their crops, boosting profits for the agribusiness giant.

Dow and its allies have insisted that their product is well tested, while industry regulators have so far overlooked critics' concerns.

"This is going to be a solution that we are looking forward to bringing to farmers," Dow's Joe Vertin told Reuters.

More than 140 advocacy groups have participated in a letter writing campaign calling on U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reject Dow's regulatory application for the herbicide and herbicide-resistant crops, submitting more than 365,000 missives ahead of a public comment period that ends April 27.

"The scientific community has sounded alarms about the dangers of 2,4-D for decades," wrote opponents in their letter to Vilsack. "Numerous studies link 2,4-D exposure to major health problems such as cancer, lowered sperm counts, liver toxicity and Parkinson's disease. Lab studies show that 2,4-D causes endocrine disruption, reproductive problems, neurotoxicity, and immunosuppression."

Some farmers have argued that the new herbicide, a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate -- the active ingredient in Monsanto's bestselling Roundup weed killer -- is necessary to combat weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate alone.
Glyphosate has also come under considerable public scrutiny in the wake of scientific findings that demonstrate the chemical causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. Health professionals contend that 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), an ingredient in the Vietnam War-era defoliant that's been blamed for public health problems both during and after the war, poses its own risks.

Agricultural consultant Steve Savage accused Dow's opponents of resorting to scare tactics, writing on his blog, Applied Mythology, that what the victims of Agent Orange "don't deserve is to have their tragedy exploited in an irresponsible way."

While most the the public health problems associated with Agent Orange have been attributed to a different ingredient, (2,4,5-T), as well as to dioxin contamination -- a number of studies have indicated that 2,4-D has significant health risks, too, according to Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, and Mae Wu, a health attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Many studies show that 2,4-D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson's Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defects," said Hauter in a statement. "USDA must take these significant risks seriously and reject approval of this crop."

Thirty-five medical and public health professionals professionals have signed on to a letter to the USDA warning of health threats that could accompany the huge an increase in 2,4-D use that is expected to result from approval of the genetically engineered seed.

It isn't just scientists who have concerns.

"Farmers are on the front lines of this potential chemical disaster," said Iowa conventional corn and soybean farmer George Naylor in a statement. He added, "I'm also very concerned about the further pollution of the air and water in my community."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/enlist-dow-agent-orange-corn_n_1456129.html


ROM does not debate the post though it is either his way or no way, if you do not believe that chemicals are the only way or that GM crops are the only way then you are an idiot....

Everyone has a choice in life, if you are smart enough to make your own decisions and not just follow everyone else and do as they do "because everyone else is doing it" then the world may be a better place.

If you have to straight away attack the person, it means that you cannot defend the cause that you are trying to defend..

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
THERE are about eight million reasons why Greenpeace should be charged with a crime against humanity.

What about the millions that have suffered at the hands of Monsanto, Dow and the like? with all of the chemicals that they have put onto people? Agent orange, DDT, PCB’s even some of the noxious chemicals that are around now, will they be held accountable? will they be charged for the deaths of people? no they wont.

Just blaming Greenpeace for people dying is a ridiculous excuse, if people were really concerned for the welfare of these people dying because of vitamin A deficiency then they could easily supply them with vitamin A supplements or food fortified with vitamin A rather than just using these poor people as pawns and scapegoats just so The biotech companies can push their GM golden rice agenda again.
(yes again as they tried it years before and were unsuccessful in getting support for it, so when the opportunity came along and they heard about these poor people with vitamin A deficiencies they jumped on it! the went for the heartstring approach of " do you really want these poor children suffering with vitamin A deficiency? do you really want people dying as a result? then we have no option but to allow the GM golden rice onto the market...)

The majority of these 8 million purported deaths could easily have been averted with the simple use of a vitamin A supplement if that were the case.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 13:20

For those who arew wondering what the Golden rice project is about here is the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project site.

This tremendously important humanitarian project has been fought agaiinst by Greenpeace, the WWF and the anti GM fanatics for over a decade now and at a cost in lives, the totally avoidable deaths of small kids and pregnant women approaching ten millions.
All because the Golden Rice varieties have genes from first Daffodils in them and now genes from Corn, something we all eat regularly which gives Golden Rice the genetics to create Beta Carotene, which creates the critical vitamin A that is lacking in all Rice varieties and species.

A large part of the development of Golden /rice was at the International Rice Institute [ IRI ]in the Philippines which is one of the half dozen centres of co-ordinated research into the world's basic food crops ie; the International Potato Institute in Peru deals with potatoes and tuber food crops. CMMYT in Mexico is the centre for wheat and corn research and there are other major global research institutes located in other regions around the world to for oil seeds. pulses and etc.

When I asked the question above;

"Are you in favour of releasing the GMO Golden Rice variety for use by Asians in the rice areas?"

it became very clear from YS's reply that he would not countenance the release of Golden Rice even though it has the ability to stop immense and unnecessary suffering and countless totally unnecessary deaths.

Yet YS has kids and I really wonder just what his reaction would be if he was extremely poor and his kids due to severe Vitamin A deficiency instead of a laughing, scrapping, questioning playing couple of kids, he, like those equally loving parents of those Vitamin A deficient little kids had to in complete helplessness, watch as his little kids and perhaps his pregnant wife slowly going blind and then slowly over a year or so get sicker and sicker and dying.

All for the lack of just one cupful of Golden Rice a day, grown by their own father from their own seed but even that denied to them by some wealthy well fed fanatical anti GMO whites in another far off land.

Little innocent kids, millions of little kids slowly going blind and slowly and dreadfully dying in front of their helpless despairing, loving parents all for the lack of a cup full of Golden Rice a a day.

The anti GMO fanatics price of the life of a child; One cup full of golden rice a day denied to them by some rich fanatics in some far off wealthy land who would never dream of refusing their own kids the Golden Rice if they were dying and it was the way they would continue to enjoy good health and good lives for many years and decades ahead.

If you are a parent would you deny your own kids a cupful of Golden Rice a day if it was the difference between life and a slow agonising dreadfull blindness and then the death for your little kid?

As a parent would you be so utterly callous as to deny another loving parent the very simple , few cents worth means to keep his kids safe ,happy, healthy and laughing little kids and allowing those parent to enjoy the growing up of their kids by deliberately denying those much poorer parents the means, the few cents a day worth of that cupful of Golden Rice and it's essential, critical to life, Vitamin A to those small kids.

Draw your own conclusions as to YS's morality and humanity in his quite clearly spelt out attitude to the release of Golden Rice and as well as the criminality of Greenpeace and the WWF and other anti GMO opponents who have fought the release of Golden Rice for a decade and have condemned some eight million little kids and their parents to totally unnecessary suffering and death.
All because of their hatred of big corporations and in their hate their inability to even differentiate what is moral and what is totally immoral, cruel and based on nothing more than their own personal fanatical anti GMO ideology.

When even a rabid left wing paper such as the UK's Guardian condemns such bigotry against the poorest of poor and thereby condemns millions of kids to death that can so easily be avoided by a few cents worth of a cup full of Golden Rice a day you know that there is a very serious and total lack of morality and humanity in the whole anti GMO ideology and it's followers.

After 30 years, is a GM food breakthrough finally here?

>>>>>>>Golden rice, a new strain that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries, could be sown in the Philippines – and is the new battleground crop

Scientists say they have seen the future of genetically modified foods and have concluded that it is orange or, more precisely, golden. Next year, golden rice – normal rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world – could be given to farmers in the Philippines for planting in paddy fields.

Thirty years after scientists first revealed they had created the world's first GM crop, hopes that their potential to ease global malnutrition problems may be realised at last. Bangladesh and Indonesia have indicated they are ready to accept golden rice and other nations, including India, have also said that they are considering planting it.

"Vitamin A deficiency is deadly," said Adrian Dubock, a member of the Golden Rice project. "It affects children's immune systems and kills around two million every year in developing countries. It is also a major cause of blindness in the third world. Boosting levels of vitamin A in rice provides a simple, straightforward way to put that right."

Recent tests have revealed that a substantial amount of vitamin A can be obtained by eating only 60g of cooked golden rice. "This has enormous potential," said Dubock.

But scientists' satisfaction over the Golden Rice project has been tempered by the fact that it has taken an extraordinarily long time for the GM crop to be approved. Golden rice was first developed in 1999, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, and who have also argued that the crop's introduction in the developing world would make farmers increasingly dependent on western industry. The crop has become the cause célèbre of the anti-GM movement, which sees golden rice as a tool of global capitalism.

This view is rejected by the scientists involved. "We have developed this in conjunction with organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a way of alleviating a real health problem in the developing world," says Dubock. "No one is going to make money out of it. The companies involved in developing some of the technologies have waived their licences just to get this off the ground."

This view is shared by Mark Lynas, an environmental campaigner and one of the founders of the anti-GM crop movement. He has publicly apologised for opposing the planting of GM crops in Britain. "The first generation of GM crops were suspect, I believed then, but the case for continued opposition to new generations – which provide life-saving vitamins for starving people – is no longer justifiable. You cannot call yourself a humanitarian and be opposed to GM crops today."

Golden rice was created by Peter Beyer, professor for cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland, in the late 1990s. They inserted genes for a chemical known as beta-carotene into the DNA of normal rice. In this way they modified the rice genes so that the plants started to make beta-carotene, a rich orange-coloured pigment that is also a key precursor chemical used by the body to make vitamin A.

By 2000 the plant was ready for trials. However, it took another five years before test fields were grown, such was the resistance to the idea of introducing GM plants in many countries. These trials showed golden rice could stimulate vitamin A uptake but at a low level. New research was launched to create varieties that would provide enhanced amounts of the vitamins.

"All the time, opponents to golden rice insisted, year after year, that it would not be able to produce vitamin A in those who ate it," said Beyer, golden rice's co-creator. "For example, it was alleged by Greenpeace that people would have to eat several kilograms of the stuff to get any benefit."

Two studies, both published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, demolished this claim. The first, in 2009, was based on a group of healthy adult volunteers in the US and showed that golden rice's beta-carotene was easily taken up into the bloodstream. The second trial was carried out by American and Chinese researchers and published last year. It was carried out on Chinese children, aged between six and eight, and showed that a bowl of cooked golden rice, between 100g and 150g, could provide 60% of the recommended intake of vitamin A for young people. The study also revealed that golden rice is better than spinach at providing vitamin A.

"Given that normal rice has no vitamin A to speak of, that shows the importance of what has been achieved," said Dubock.

The latter study has since been immersed in controversy after it was claimed in a Greenpeace press release that the parents of the Chinese children had not been informed they were being given GM food and had been used as guinea pigs. An investigation by the Chinese authorities led to the sacking of the three Chinese scientists named by Greenpeace, which described the incident as "another example of big business hustling in on one the world's most sacred things: our food supply". For his part, Lynas has described Greenpeace's actions as "immoral and inhumane" because it deprives "the needy of something that would help them and their children because of the aesthetic preferences of rich people far away".

The reactions of bureaucracies to golden rice were also described by Beyer as "hard to believe". "We have had to undergo endless trials and tests and endure endless amounts of bureaucracy. Yet new breeds of standard crops have no such problems, even though they are often created by exposing them to doses of radiation. This is done to create new mutant breeds which you can then grow to see if any have features you like. None of the regulations that we had to meet in creating golden rice were imposed on these plant breeders. Yet this is the standard means by which new crops, including organic crops, are created. It is manifestly unbalanced."

This point was backed by Dubock. "All the time we have been required to show that there are no risks associated with growing golden rice, but at no point did we get a chance to point out its benefits. Everything is about risk assessment and nothing is about benefits assessment." Of course, some doubts about the technology still remain, as my colleague John Vidal makes clear here.

Nevertheless, a warning about consequences of imposing regulations on GM crops and not others was provided by Professor Cathie Martin of the John Innes Centre in Norwich. "At institutes like ours, we can prioritise research to bring new consumer health benefits and environmental benefits to market [via GM], as long as the regulatory process is not prohibitively expensive for publicly funded organisations."

The fate of golden rice is therefore important, as Professor Jonathan Jones of the John Innes Centre points out. "When I started making GM plants 30 years ago I did wonder if there might be unknown unknowns. But the evidence now is clear. GM food and crops are as safe as non-GM food and crops."

The prospect of further delays preventing future life-saving GM plants going to the field because of carefully orchestrated campaigns of opposition is therefore viewed with concern.

The Golden Rice project has had one beneficial knock-on effect, however. It has triggered a series of similar crop modification programmes that aim to tackle vitamin A deficiency through use of other GM foodstuffs. One example is provided by the golden banana, which has been created by scientists led by Professor James Dale of Queensland University in Australia.

"In Uganda, where the banana is a key source of nutrition, there is considerable vitamin A deficiency and also iron deficiency in diets," he said. "The former not only causes blindness but leaves children less able to fight disease which, in Africa, is particularly serious. The latter, iron deficiency, causes blood disorders."

To put this right, Dale and his team have found ways to boost beta-carotene levels in bananas. Now they are working on boosting iron levels as well. The team expects to have developed a golden banana, that will raise both iron and vitamin A levels, by the end of the decade.


"People in Uganda eat up to a kilogram of mashed banana a day, so we don't need to get a great deal of beta-carotene in our bananas," said Dale.

The result of the team's work will be similar to golden rice: peeled, the pale fruit will be carrot-coloured. And if that sounds strange, it is worth noting that carrots were not originally orange. In the 17th century they were mostly yellow or purple, but were bred to be orange by Dutch farmers in tribute to the ruling House of Orange.

This article was amended on 13 March 2013. Originally it said that golden rice would be in given to farmers in the Philippines "in a few months". It is still undergoing a registration process and may not be released until next year at the earliest.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 14:25

Quote:
Little innocent kids, millions of little kids slowly going blind and slowly and dreadfully dying in front of their helpless despairing, loving parents all for the lack of a cup full of Golden Rice a a day.

The anti GMO fanatics price of the life of a child; One cup full of golden rice a day denied to them by some rich fanatics in some far off wealthy land who would never dream of refusing their own kids the Golden Rice if they were dying and it was the way they would continue to enjoy good health and good lives for many years and decades ahead.

If you are a parent would you deny your own kids a cupful of Golden Rice a day if it was the difference between life and a slow agonising dreadfull blindness and then the death for your little kid?

As a parent would you be so utterly callous as to deny another loving parent the very simple , few cents worth means to keep his kids safe ,happy, healthy and laughing little kids and allowing those parent to enjoy the growing up of their kids by deliberately denying those much poorer parents the means, the few cents a day worth of that cupful of Golden Rice and it's essential, critical to life, Vitamin A to those small kids.

Draw your own conclusions as to YS's morality and humanity in his quite clearly spelt out attitude to the release of Golden Rice and as well as the criminality of Greenpeace and the WWF and other anti GMO opponents who have fought the release of Golden Rice for a decade and have condemned some eight million little kids and their parents to totally unnecessary suffering and death.
All because of their hatred of big corporations and in their hate their inability to even differentiate what is moral and what is totally immoral, cruel and based on nothing more than their own personal fanatical anti GMO ideology.


ROM there are other ways if increasing a persons vitamin A intake that just having to rely on Genetically modifying everything. As with everything GM is not the only answer nor not the only solution.
Simple supplementation, can solve a myriad of conditions including vitamin A deficiencies. If it is a humanitarian issue, then the quick and simple process of supplying a supplement would do the job, rather than having to rely on “20 years worth of red tape and so on to get the product to market”.

If this problem was such a huge issue something would have been done about it, supplementation would have been provided and they also claim that supplementation could have been provide at a much less cost to the countless moneypit that has been Golden rice to date, and it would still achieve the same result with happy healthy children and no moral dilemmas.

Many more lives could have been saved if those steps had been taken rather than using the people as pawns, because who get the real benefits at the end of the day? the bio-tech company that has the patent on the rice and can then push the crop even further a field.

Yes i do have kids, and they do have access to good quality food, i would rather they eat something clean, fresh and wholesome rather than they had the latest ipod....even if we were down to our last penny it would be invested in good food rather than junk.It never ceases to amaze me with people who claim that they can not afford to buy good food, buy will have the latest phone, latest ipod, latest play station, will always make sure they have an ample supply of smokes and alcohol...... or their kids will always get a “happy meal”......


for me the most important thing i can do for my kids is give them the best start in life and that begins with good clean food, not to overload their bodies with chemicals from the day they are born even you must be able to see the amount of difference from when you were born to kids being born today, kids today are exposed to hundreds if not thousands more chemicals from the moment they are born.


Table 1 gives sources rich in vitamin A used commonly in Indian foods.
Source Hindi name/ Content (microgram/100g)
(Amaranth leaves) Chauli saag=266-1,166 -
(Coriander leaves) - Dhania=1,166-1,333
(Cabbage) Bandh gobi=217
(Curry leaves)-Curry patta=1,333
(Drumstick leaves)-Saijan patta1=283
(Fenugreek leaves)-Methi-ka-saag=450
(Radish leaves)-Mooli-ka-saag=750
(Mint)-Pudhina=300
(Spinach)-Palak saag=600
(Carrot)-Gajar=217-434
(Pumpkin (yellow))-Kaddu=100-120
(Mango (ripe))-Aam=500
(Jackfruit)-Kathal=54
(Orange)-Santra=35
(Tomato (ripe))-Tamatar=32
(Milk (cow, buffalo))-Doodh=50-60
(Butter)-Makkhan=720-1,200
(Egg (hen))-Anda=300-400
(Liver (Goat, sheep))-Kalegi=6,600 - 10,000
Cod liver oil=10,000 - 100,000

Any one of these crops could easily be adapted or grown....
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 14:48

your abit out of your depth with some stuff yasi glypho is rarely if ever used on its own its always spiked with something.
that fact can go back here since its inception with records if you want
yasi dont mind reading your stuff but rather than rely on hearsay and myth send me a private email or question me publicly i will let you know what we use and majority of farmers use here in aust.

if a farmer had product a cheap nasty and enviormentally dangerous or product b more expensive but does the same job 99% of farmers will go with b and have you ever actually been on a working farm be it livestock or crop?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 15:27

Quote:
have you ever actually been on a working farm be it livestock or crop?

Well of course, on the larger scale in my younger days, i was and have.
Previously stated i have seen the end result of those people who previously worked on those farms (or still do) most have either suffered from forms of cancer or are either no longer with us (before there time also).

So in later life i have looked at other alternatives, i have spent a great deal of time researching and spending time among others that have changed from full on chemical reliance/dependence to complete organic growing methods on a commercial scale.
For them it is not so much the transitional process it is the Government red tape and the certifications that they have to go thru to obtain organic certification, but they all say at the end of the day it is well worth it and in the long run they are much better off.

I know one fellow who grows certified bio dynamic small crops on the tablelands and he basically looks after 100+ acres of small crops by himself (including weeding by hand!)

If you have not looked already have a look at this website http://www.eco-banana.com.au/ they have done the hard yards in terms of transition from full on chemical use to organic methods. ( and Banana's have to be one of the worst crops for chemical use, my wife used to get seconds from a farm to feed to animals, and had to give it up after a very short amount of time as the chemicals they used to wash the Banana's with made the skin on her hands peel off, but as soon as she stopped going there her hands returned to normal)
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 15:49

I am with you on this one Yasified Shack. Don't like GM foods and never will. They WILL come back to bite us on the ass one day(thats if antibiotics don't do the job first with the creation of an unstoppable superbug). Playing god in the short term might work wonders but in the long term will always be a bad idea.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/03/2013 17:19

If you look a bit harder into these things you will find that some of the companies Like monsanto now own large Pharma companies as well, so they get a double whammy... they make you sick with the chemicals they sell, then they will help to make you "better" with some nice new pills that they can sell you, the only down side is that they don't actually cure you they just mask your symptoms OH! and you have to be on them for the rest of your life! (nice little money earner hey?)

Same with antibiotics experts will tell you that there has only been 2 new antibiotics released onto the market in the last year or so, why is that? Because there is not as much money in it for the big pharma companies.
There is more money to be made elsewhere....
If somebody comes down with a major illness chances are that they will have to be on a particular medication for weeks-months, years.. if not the rest of their lives and quite often these medicines are very expensive.
In comparison with antibiotics they are relatively cheap you take them for a short course- they do there job -case closed, so there is not as much money in it for big pharma with antibiotics........
As with GM crops if it aint broken don't fix it! nature always has away around things.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 12:24

Is it called golden rice because it is a golden opportunity to Monopolize the Asian Rice market?

It is a bit like infant formulas these companies will have new mothers believe that they are doing the best thing by their baby in feeding their babies infant formula (and that everything else is second rate) because it contains all of the necessary vitamins.....well no, Boobs are the best thing for babies (.....and fathers too) you have all of these experts tell you that infants under 6 months of age should not be fed cows milk? um isn’t baby formula 99 odd precent powdered cows milk?



Another thing to ponder is Humans are the only species that drink another species milk!, could you imaging the looks and comments you would get if someone offered you a glass of breast milk? shock horror!! “Oh my god! !eeeew! that is disgusting...!” but they would not give a second thought to drinking milk that comes from a different species.



The vitamins that are in the infant formulas would more than likely be of synthetic origins so therefore would largely unavailable to the infant and passed straight out of the babies system with very little benefit.



Similar situation with golden rice.......





The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously

aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.



Besides creating vitamin A deficiency, vitamin A rice will also create deficiency in other micronutrients

and nutrients. Raw milled rice has a low content of Fat (0.5g/100g). Since fat is necessary for vitamin A

uptake, this will aggravate vitamin A deficiency. It also has only 6.8g/100g of protein, which means less

carrier molecules. It has only 0.7g/100g of iron, which plays a vital role in the conversion of Betacarotene

(precursor of vitamin A found in plant sources) to vitamin A.

Superior Alternatives exist and are effective.



A far more efficient route to removing vitamin A deficiency is biodiversity conservation and propagation

of naturally vitamin A rich plants in agriculture and diets.



It is also untrue that vitamin A rice will lead to increased production of betacarotene. Even if the target

of 33.3 microgram of vitamin A in 100g of rice is achieved, it will be only 2.8% of betacarotene we can

obtain from amaranth leaves 2.4% of betacarotene obtained from coriander leaves, curry leaves and

drumstick leaves.




http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 18:01

YS's whole premise here is actually quite insulting to those people who are amongst the poorest on earth.
He is making the insulting assumption that those people are not intelligent enough to actually go and find out for themselves the alternatives to rice that might better their health and that of their kids.

There a lots of stories from aid workers who have worked amongst these poorest of poor and they tell of the great lengths these people will go to to better their lot
So if they haven't adopted the western anti GMO's zealot's various range of plant's solution to their vitamin A deficiency then there will be a damn good reason why they haven't done so.
But also Rice is the staple crop in many regions but far from the only one so other crops can and will be grown if practical and useful in any way.

I don't know all the reasons why some of the crops proposed by the anti GMO zealots are not grown but some reasons I can guess at'
# The crop needs to be stored for a long period, and kept free from insects, mould and other fungal diseases in storage for months for the family to draw on as food during the dry and non productive part of the season and polished rice is about the only crop that this can be done in the prevailing climatic conditions with only some primitive storage facilities.
# The leaf crops and tuber crops in those very high humidity conditions once uprooted and harvested will rot in a few days or weeks at the most so once gone there is no other food for the next few months for those families.
# Most / All of those supposed other Vitamin A producing plants need lots of fertilizer plus lots of insecticides and fungicides from big Chem to get any decent production out of them.
An expense that the poor cannot afford particularly when those crops won't even store for any length of time.
# The total production of the alternative plants is way below that of rice and complete failures unless again lots of herbicides and fiungicides and insecticides in those monsoon type very high humidity conditions which is adapted to those harsh conditions except of course if some GMO technology was used to adapt those alternative plants to the conditions.
# All those alternative crops would probably just rot rather than grow in the very high humidity, high rainfall monsoon conditions prevailing during the growing season.
# Most of those western anti GMO zealot promoted alternative crops would not survive a period of drought which rice will due to it's 3000 years of adaption to the conditions by the local people.

As an illustration one hell of a lot of different crops have tried to be grown in the Ord River scheme in WA's North over the last 30 years as also around the Top End in the NT and most crops have been failures even with the use of vast amounts of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides and all the latest technology being used so what hope is there for all those know all western anti GMO zealot's solutions to the economically poor rice eater's vitamin A deficiency .

These people are just as smart as any do gooder westerner so it is deeply insulting to even suggest that they are incapable of finding solutions to their vitamin A deficiency problems if there was one other than rice and as good as rice under their climatic and cultural conditions.

Golden Rice with it's tested Vitamin A benefits that will supply some two thirds of the daily needs of the Vitamin A needs of these rice eating poor just fits right into those people's needs.

To deny them access to Golden Rice on the totally spuriously evil grounds that it might affect their health because it is a GMO while millions of kids go blind and die is utterly criminal and I hope one day that those responsible for the delay and the opposition to such health giving foods being supplied to the poor while they wallow in luxury and plenty will be hauled before the Earth's peoples to give a full account of their criminality.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 18:05

And to claim that just giving them Golden rice because nothing else is good enough is just "blind".
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 18:18

Your'e verballing me yet again YS.

I said that those poorest of people who are rice eaters are smart enough to figure out solutions to their Vitamin A deficiency for themselves if there is one and they would use those alternatives IF they were suitable but obviously your claimed solutions don't work or some of them would have been used.
But non use by these rice eating people indicated they don't work and don't work in all probability because of some of the factors I pointed out.
Golden rice fits in with their climatic conditions , growing conditions , storage abilities and cultural and economic needs but you would deny then this because your ideological zealotry doesn't allow another human to enjoy the prospects of good health if it is against your'e fanatical anti GMO ideology
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 20:15

ROM, given that you're so deeply concerned about the health and welfare of the poor children and people of the world, have you any thoughts on the toxic waste trade?

It's the trade that includes among several things, banned and expired ag chemicals from developed countries. They get shipped off to poor and "developing" countries whose governments are prepared to accept what amounts to stuff all money by our standards to take it off our hands and "store" it.

Actually, I'm not sure if Australia does it, but you'd probably know. What do farmers here do with banned and out of date chemicals?
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 21:19

Hand them back in on those particular days that are specified by the likes of the DSE here in Victoria. Jax.
From there they go to high temperature retorts which break the chemicals down into harmless chemicals

A large or by far the most part of any chemical in the drum or can is actually a quite benign, non active carrier like certain forms of oil into which the actictive chemical are actually mixed.
Those oils are water soluble, they mix easily with water .
So when the farmer or sprayer operator loads or pumps the chemical into the hopper on the side of his spray unit, he flicks the tap and the chemical is sucked and washed up into the larger spray unit tanks which hold 6000 liters of water these days which will spray about 100 hectares or 250 acres in most cases and sometimes more.
Some chemicals come in the form of a powder and those are just tip a few grams into the hopper or tank and you are on your way.
There is no need to actually come into contact with any chemicals unless you are very careless as the design of spray units is also coming under a set of chemical handling standards.

Those powder chemicals in most cases are only slightly toxic to man and animals but very good on plants.
All farm chemicals these days go through a very stringent process of registration and must show they are well below certain toxicity levels.
And in fact it is this very stringent and very costly process of chemical registration that has enabled the big chem companies to dominate the market .
Had there been some flexibility in the registration process a lot of smaller chemical companies could have survived and created competition to the them when they were much smaller but now they are large and dominant chemical companies due to the push from non farming do gooder outfits for those extreme laws on chemicals ,.

Of course farm chemicals are only a tiny proportion of the total chemical output of these companies who have their products in everything we see and touch and use in our lives.

Some household bleaches you buy in the super markets are a damn sight more toxic than most but not all farm chemicals these days.

The laws are very stringent these days on both the use of farm chemical with the requirement that users go through a certified training course. Storage of chemicals must be set up to contain any leaks and must be secure.

Not only banned chemicals but also radioactive wastes plus toxic wastes from entire industries plus batteries which can no longer be dismantled for their lead and etc in Australia but go to China and places like that from where the Chinese ship the lead and etc back to us at a huge markup.

India has a huge industry in ship breaking on the shores of the Arabic sea a where low cost labour mostly manually, breaks ships up for their steel , copper, oil still in the tanks , brass and everything else.
And breaking ships is damn hard work and highly polluting

It gives employment to tens of thousands who would otherwise would have no work and no income .
The indian government had a go at banning the ship breaking and got pretty well smashed by riots from the hundreds of thousands of people in that area who had no other jobs or employment so the ship breaking and the battery break up and all those other nasties from around the world are dealt with and recycled and resold to the western countries.

We in our stupidity have made so many laws that it impossible to deal with those of our own nasties on our own turf.
If we had to deal with a lot of that stuff here the expense of doing so is such due to the stringency of those laws that it would be far cheaper just to dump those nasties into a deep hole somewhere than to try and reprocess and recover all that quite useable materials.

So somebody somewhere does it for us and name their price as a result.
Now we can get all upright and holier than thou about such activities and I don't like it at all but it is a ladder if you want to call it that, that is helping to haul those countries and their immense populations out of poverty.

It is what the Koreans did after the Korean war,
It is what the Chinese have done and the Indians and Pakis and Bangladeshi's are still doing and like the Koreans of the past and the Japanese, their economies are growing at 6,7 and 8 per cent per year.
Ours is growing at a couple of percent a year.

Look at history and you will find that as the economies of those undeveloped nations get going and their economies get richer, their laws get tougher on pollution and work practices and a lot of that sort of stuff and industries are cleaned up until they come much closer to the standards we expect.

And if you are talking about banned chemicals then those countries like India which basically ignored the banned DDT in the 1960's and early 70's didn't lose many of those 40 to 50 millions of avoidable deaths [ UN estimates ] from Malaria that came about because greenpeace and other environmental outfits with an agenda convinced the world's governments to ban DDT, the most benign insecticide on warm blooded animals going but one of the most deadly insecticides for the malarial mosquito we have ever had.
Now DDT is again being produced in large tonnages for use against the malaria mosquito and the hell with greenpeace and those outfits.

So was that ban on DDT that cost some 40 to 50 million people their lives from malaria over the last 40 years such a good idea?

Greenpeace and those in greenpeace involved will have to wear that 40 million lives as their evil legacy for all the days it exists and on into history as well. The chickens on that are just now starting to show signs of coming home to roost at last..
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/03/2013 21:34

And I will add; there is a strong criminal element operating as apparent legitimate companies out of Europe in particular but probably world wide who are being paid to dispose of chemicals and toxic wastes out of industries by those industrial companies but which then buy off some Big Man in some despot ruled nation and just dump the chemicals there.

That is evil personified to dump those chemical wastes on unsuspecting people and when caught those types should be cop the full total force of the laws.

Incidentally the solar panel pushers are involved in an industry which uses some of the most toxic chemicals around in it's manufacturing process on those solar panels.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 09:32

Originally Posted By: ROM
Your'e verballing me yet again YS.

I said that those poorest of people who are rice eaters are smart enough to figure out solutions to their Vitamin A deficiency for themselves if there is one and they would use those alternatives IF they were suitable but obviously your claimed solutions don't work or some of them would have been used.
But non use by these rice eating people indicated they don't work and don't work in all probability because of some of the factors I pointed out.
Golden rice fits in with their climatic conditions , growing conditions , storage abilities and cultural and economic needs but you would deny then this because your ideological zealotry doesn't allow another human to enjoy the prospects of good health if it is against your'e fanatical anti GMO ideology


Well then if they are smart enough to figure out a solution then why do they need to bother with Golden Rice? simple they don’t.

The same can be said for some of the plants that i have mentioned also they are also well suited to humid tropical conditions and grow very well, i know as i grow some of them.
Golden rice only fits in with the company that created it as they want to open up a market to sell it and what better way to do it than claim it will solve blindness, just like they also claimed the GM crops will solve world hunger...and we are still waiting because that has not happened.

And it is funny how the “poorest” in society are always the Guinea pigs for the large profit taking companies. Because if someone does die more than likely no one will kick up a stink or make noise about it.



Originally Posted By: ROM
# Most of those western anti GMO zealot promoted alternative crops would not survive a period of drought which rice will due to it's 3000 years of adaption to the conditions by the local people.

This is a funny comment also, seems that people in India have the same problem with GM cotton crops, if they don’t get enough water the crops die! yet the traditional varieties of cotton that the Indian’s planted did not need anywhere near the amount of water to survive that the GM crops do!

Again the only people who benefit from GM crops are the people that hold the patents.

Originally Posted By: ROM
Golden Rice with it's tested Vitamin A benefits that will supply some two thirds of the daily needs of the Vitamin A needs of these rice eating poor just fits right into those people's needs..

Do you know this for a fact? or did you just cut and paste it from the website where you read it? Just because it claims to have more vitamin A content does not mean the the source of vitamin A is a 100% available to the human body.

Originally Posted By: ROM
There is no need to actually come into contact with any chemicals unless you are very careless as the design of spray units is also coming under a set of chemical handling standards.

So the spray drift of some of these pesticides then stops at your fenceline? and is not carries on the wind in very fine droplets, because some of the pesticide sprays that i have read about have the ability to carry for 5km or further, and 24d can carry for upto 30ks.



Product in the Image Monsanto Lasso Herbicide (agricultural)
Product Category:Pesticides » grass, weed control/corn » Herbicide
Warnings: Warning:
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
Keep out of reach of children.
Acute Health Effects: From MSDS

Potential Health Affects:
Likely routes of exposure - Skin contact, eye contact, inhalation
Eye contact, short term - risk of serious damage to eyes. Eye injury may be permanent.
Skin contact, short term - Irritating to skin. May cause allergic skin reaction.
Inhalation, short term - Irritating to respiratory system.
Single ingestion - Harmful if swallowed.

Chronic Health Effects: From MSDS
MONOCHLOROBENZENE:
INHALATION, EXCESSIVE, NON OCCUPATIONAL, OCCUPATIONAL:
Gastro-intestinal effects: liver damage
Urological/renal effects: kidney damage
General/systemic effects: fatigue
INGESTION: May cause effects similar to those described above.

NAPHTHALENE:
SKIN EFFECTS: sensitization
EYE CONTACT, REPEATED, OCCUPATIONAL: Clouding of eye (opacity of cornea)
INHALATION, EXCESSIVE, OCCUPATIONAL, NON OCCUPATIONAL: Eye nerve inflammation (retrobulbar and/or optic neuritis; skin yellowing (jaundice); urinary bladder inflammation (cystitis); destruction of red cells (hemolysis), methemoglobinemia; blood in urine (hematuria)
INGESTION: May cause effects similar to those described under Inhalation.

Carcinogenicity: From MSDS
May cause cancer.
IARC Classification: Naphthalene Category 2B.


The state of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 requires the following label on this product. WARNING! This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
The addition of an asterisk (*) after the number indicates that exposure to chemicals in the specific brand could also pose a chronic hazard (such as emphysema or kidney damage).


Wow, lucky that product is safe to use, and i guess we should thank our lucky stars Monsato have developed a GM 24d resistant crop that is designed to be sprayed with this stuff, and of course the actual plants will manufacture there own ,not to mention it will be in what you eat.

i will leave you with a small snippet of a comment from a fellow farmer about how benign DDT is......



" I grew up on a cane farm and we also grew small crops. I now have health problems that are attributed to the various chemicals such as DDT, Dieldrin, 24D, Mercury etc.

We try to avoid chemicals in our food as much as we can and will now buy your product. I hope that your venture is sucessful and lead others to farm in the same way.

If you have further info or news I will be glad to have it".
Regards
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 10:36

In the end YS it doesn't matter a damn to the rest of the world what you might think or rant on about your personal problems which you blame entirely on some chemical company somewhere.
There are another seven billions of our race on this planet and soon to be nine billions before it levels out and starts to fall in the later parts of the 21st century.

Fixated doom mongers like yourself and your total fixation on your own personal anti chemical , anti GMO and no doubt anti most other things ideology and supposed experiences are no more that a few tens of millions at the most and probably a lot less in numbers on this planet.

And that leaves another nearly 7 billions who could'nt give a damn where their food comes from or how it is produced so long as it is healthy and cheap.
The farmers and food producers of the world will need to double their current production of food to cater for both those extra couple of billions of our race in the next half century and to make up the increased demand for more and better quality food as living standards in the undeveloped countries rise over the next half a century and beyond.

We produce over 2000 million tonnes of grain each year and that will account for perhaps half of the food the world needs each year. By 2050 we will need to produce perhaps double that amount of grain off very nearly the same arable area plus a similar increase in the other food production to fulfill the food needs of our race.

The people of the world both need the food we now produce and will demand the food needs of the future and their rulers will ensure that they will get that food regardless of the methods used to produce that food.

Even in despotically ruled nations like North Korea the ruling families get very up tight when famine hits their country as people without food are desperate people and rulers through out history have fallen and often died when they could not ensure there people were adequately fed.

You may rant. You may rave. You may deliberately distort food science.
You might rant and rave about chemical companies and GMO's and al those other terrible sins that the farmers and food producers of the world supposedly carry out but you are pissing into the wind for when people are faced with empty bellies then food of any sort is demanded .

It is far better that we use all the technology at our disposal to produce food in abundance, properly tested and healthy and available to all at a price they can afford rather than cripple food production for some stupidity from some holyier than thou western fanatics that makes it impossible to grow enough food to feed earth's peoples.

You and you're cult ideology are irrelevant and increasingly laughed at YS for the world wants and demands it's food both healthy and cheap.
The alternative is starvation and death on a massive scale and you in your self centred ideology are far from being excluded from those who might starve and die if your ideology was ever imposed and enforced.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 11:32

ROM that is one of the nastiest posts I have seen on here for a long time, and if you don't see it then that worries me. Once again attacking the person and not the topic. Like I said before the world has changed and your trust in the multinationals and the spin they throw out is astonishing. Wish the world was like it was 30 years ago but it isn't. Your post does NOTHING to respond to points raised but simply posts a whole heap of personal comments about YS. Tells me a couple of things - (1) you have clearly lost the argument and (2) it is easy to abuse others online without having to deal with the consequences. If you don't have anything constructive to add to this topic how about taking some time out and calming down.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 12:49

Bello boy, I don't hold any particular brief for multinationals or any other big corporations .
They are quite capable of looking after themselves.
But I do read and think a lot about the future of of the world population and the needs of those future populations.

So you attack me for countering somebody who has made it quite clear that they would deny some billion rice eating Asians the right to make a choice as to whether or not they choose to grow a rice , the Golden Rice which will provide a large part of the essential to health vitamin A , a lack of which has led to the avoidable deaths of 8 million kids and pregnant women over the last decade.

You attack me for countering somebody who would restrict the use of the herbicides, insecticides and fungicides that are esential to the growing of enough food to feed the earth's people both now and into the far future.

You attack me for countering an ideology which has already led to the avoidable deaths of millions of kids in Asia because that ideology has succeeded in stopping a health giving food, Golden Rice with it's gene for Beta Carotene taken from Corn, a crop that is consumed by humans world wide, that produces the essential to health vitamin A

What I have posted is reality, hard as it may be for some people to accept but there is nothing that is nasty or sinister about that reality.
The world needs food and much more of it in the future .
The ideologists of the west who are trying to place their own personal belief strictures on food production are just taking themselves out of any reckoning by those who will have to see that their populations are adequately fed.

Too many ordinary decent people have been killed and died over the last century because of murderous ideologies that were supposedly founded on an ideology that was going to correct the sins and problems of the world,

All enforced by a cohort of fanatical believers who believed the end, nasty as it was to prove , justified the means, the means being the deliberate oppression and even destruction of entire groups of non believers or those who opposed the ideology.

I grew up in an era where exactly the same type of fanatical ideology exercised by a few fanatics who were trying to impose their brand of racist in this case, ideology onto the rest of the world.
It took the loss of some 70 million lives to smash that particular fanatical ideology.

I won't countenance the attempts which we see here to try and force a particular food producing ideology onto the peoples of the world.
Idealism is great but reality is the outcome regardless of any idealism.

And what is wrong with pointing out the utter irrelevance of an individuals personal ideology and beliefs when it comes to the needs of the entire global peoples?

After all as you will see in that article I posted on the Golden Rice project [ backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation ] that
Quote:
Current breeding and field trialling work is being carried out by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines together with PhilRice, the Philippine Rice Research Institute.
PhilRice is preparing a submission to the regulatory authority of the Philippines in 2013, which could lead to initial releases to farmers in 2014.
And the work doesn't stop there. If the first hurdles are taken successfully, then Golden Rice will be heading towards China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
In those countries national programs are already involved in laying out the necessary groundwork.


So the ravings of the anti GMO mob are now being ignored by governments all over so what is the reasons why that shouldn't be pointed out.
Europeans are importing millions of tonnes of GMO corn into europe each year as animal corn.
And there have been no consequence at all .

We have pages and pages of extremist rants and ravings from YS on this thread all vehemently attacking anybody he assumes accepts GMO crops and who has used and seen the huge benefits over a life time of farming as well as the problems with chemicals in food production and YS has made it very clear that he would impose his brand of ideology on all food production if he had his way.

So Bello Boy instead of attacking myself for stating the bleeding obvious I would have thought that you would be all for supporting somebody who wants to see that regardless of ideology or beliefs about the good and bad of some food production technology, you
want to see the death toll from vitamin A deficiencies and the chance for those millions who wish to to improve their health by growing a new crop satisified.

I would have though that you would be right behind somebody who, wants to use all the available technology to make as sure as we can be that there will be sufficient food both now and into the future for all of and each of our race of mankind.

It appears that I am sadly mistaken
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 15:50

Originally Posted By: ROM
And that leaves another nearly 7 billions who couldn't give a damn where their food comes from or how it is produced so long as it is healthy and cheap.


And therein lies the problem, as the majority of the population has lost touch from where it’d food has come from because everyone it too “time poor” they want everything to be “convenient” and they don’t want to have to lift a finger to do anything as that is how society has made them, and if everybody had the same attitude as you then god help the next generation.....
it never ceases to amaze me the amount of crap people will eat and they think it is just the best, when it comes to their bodies they could quite simple give a stuff which is quite sad really, but in every other aspect of life they have to have the best and be the best, yet the thing that fuels them, the thing that keeps them alive (Food) is treated as an after thought.

The tide is turning though and you can see more and more people are wanting to know what actually goes into their food and what chemical are used on it because, they know they are not safe.

The way you attack me at times it is like i am the only person on the planet that thinks this way and that if i SHOUT out loud enough i might wake a few people up and start some alarm bells ringing, well that is the point the more people that know where their food comes from the better, the more people that know about the chemicals that are sprayed on their food the better, the more people that can stand up and fight, rather than just being walked on the better, the more people that question things and don’t just take the word of a multinational that tells me to buy something because it *might* be good for me? (hmm) then the better this place will be.

i obviously have hit a few raw nerves and that is good because the truth hurts, hopefully if/when enough people kick up a stink and put companies like Monsanto back in their place and make them think their position on GM crops then good.

Just because you add a gene to a plant to make the seed manufacture *more* vitamin A does not necessarily make it a good thing, if rice does not naturally contain vitamin A then there is probably a good reason for it, take fruit sugars, in the whole package that is the fruit the simple sugars by themselves pose no problems, it is only when man thinks that they can do things better and remove this and that and process everything to a perfect white consistency and you are left with complex sugars at the end of the process, then that is what causes all manner of problems.

Plain and simple fact is there is more than enough food to go around.
Plain and simple fact is people are just to fussy for their own good, so much good quality food is wasted daily and sent to landfill because it is not “perfect” and does not meet buyers “expectations”

Quite simply your chemicals are not as safe as you claim them to be, that is why you consistently attack me rather than defend the chemicals......
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 16:06

Originally Posted By: Jax
ROM, given that you're so deeply concerned about the health and welfare of the poor children and people of the world, have you any thoughts on the toxic waste trade?

It's the trade that includes among several things, banned and expired ag chemicals from developed countries. They get shipped off to poor and "developing" countries whose governments are prepared to accept what amounts to stuff all money by our standards to take it off our hands and "store" it.

Actually, I'm not sure if Australia does it, but you'd probably know. What do farmers here do with banned and out of date chemicals?


Its not the farmers themselves that have anything to do with this..its the manufacturers,just like our friends Monsanto .
If a chemical has been banned in the west then Monsanto and friends just sell it to any other country that is less regulated..and unfortunately in this age of global trade it can still come back to the country that banned it in the form of contaminated fruit,meat, processed food etc..

As we all well know (except maybe for ROM)Monsanto or most other multinationals are working for the shareholders (which is most people that have a super fund) and money speaks far louder than morals and the good of mankind.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/12-21-95/bannedexports.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 19:53


Did someone mention something about a food shortage?

Elimination of food waste could lift 1bn out of hunger, say campaignersExcessive consumption in rich countries 'takes food out of mouths of poor' by inflating food prices on global market


Eliminating the millions of tonnes of food thrown away annually in the US and UK could lift more than a billion people out of hunger worldwide, experts claim.

Government officials, food experts and representatives of the retail trade brought together by the Food Ethics Council argue that excessive consumption of food in rich countries inflates food prices in the developing world. Buying food, which is then often wasted, reduces overall supply and pushes up the price of food, making grain less affordable for poor and undernourished people in other parts of the world. Food waste also costs UK consumers £10.2bn a year and when production, transportation and storage are factored in, it is responsible for 5% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions.

Tristram Stuart, author of a new book on food waste and a contributor to a special food waste issue of the Food Ethics Council's magazine, said: "There are nearly a billion malnourished people in the world, but all of them could be lifted out of hunger with less than a quarter of the food wasted in Europe and North America. In a globalised food system, where we are all buying food in the same international market place, that means we're taking food out of the mouths of the poor."

Stuart calculated that the hunger of 1.5bn people could be alleviated by eradicating the food wasted by British consumers and American retailers, food services and householders, including the arable crops such as wheat, maize and soy to produce the wasted meat and dairy products. He added that the production of wasted food also squanders resources, and said that the irrigation water used by farmers to grow wasted food would be enough for the equivalent domestic water needs of 9bn people.

Food waste costs every household in the UK between £250 and £400 a year, figures that are likely to be updated this autumn when the government's waste agency WRAP publishes new statistics. Producing and distributing the 6.7m tonnes of edible food that goes uneaten and into waste in the UK also accounts for 18m tonnes of CO2.

But Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, warned that reducing food waste alone would not be enough to alleviate hunger, because efficiency gains in natural resources are routinely cancelled out by growth in consumption. "Food waste is harmful and unfair, and it is essential to stop food going into landfill. But the irony is that consumption growth and persistent inequalities look set to undo the good that cutting food waste does in reducing our overall use of natural resources and improving food security," he said.

MacMillan explained that the land and resources freed up by cutting food waste would likely be put to producing and consuming other things, such as growing more resource-intensive and expensive foods, bio-energy or textile crops. "Now is the moment all parties should be searching outways to define prosperity that get away from runaway consumption. Until they succeed, chucking out less food won't make our lifestyles more sustainable," he said.

In addition to cutting down on waste, experts suggested food waste that does end up in bins could be dealt with in more environmentally friendly ways.

Paul Bettison, chair of the Local Government Association environment board, wrote: "Many councils are now giving residents a separate bin for their food waste. Leftovers are being turned into fertiliser, or gas to generate electricity. In some areas, in-vessel composting and anaerobic digestion are playing a key role in cutting council spending on landfill tax and reducing methane emissions."

But there are obstacles to generating energy and producing compost from food waste, he warned. "Lack of infrastructure is holding back the drive to make getting rid of food waste cheaper and greener. Councils do not want to collect leftovers without somewhere to send them, but nobody wants to build the places to send food waste until it is being collected."

Writing in the magazine, the retail industry defended sell-by and use-by dates, which were criticised as confusing by environment secretary Hilary Benn in June. Andrew Opie, director of food and consumer policy at the British Retail Consortium, wrote: "Certainly, some customers aren't clear about what the different dates mean but getting rid of them won't reduce food waste. Customer education will."

Last month, the government also criticised supermarket "bogof" offers (buy one get one free) that encourage shoppers to buy food they don't need and which ends up unused in bins, adding to the UK's food waste mountain.

The renewed push for action on food waste comes comes as a National Zero Waste Week by online campaigners and bloggers gets under way, encouraging individuals to go one day without putting anything in their bins.

Food waste tips from the web

• Don't fall for "three for two" deals on fresh food unless you'll definitely use them - Susan Smillie, Guardian food blogger

• Plan weekly meals and stick to shopping lists - Susan Smillie

• Keep your fridge at 1-5 degrees to make chilled food last for longer -lovefoodhatewaste.com

• Remove bad apples! One bad apple can spoil the barrel, so separate fruit which is ripening faster than the others - Womens' Institute

• Just chuck your leftover veggies into a stockpot to make a delicious stock for soups - Thomasina Miers, MasterChef winner and food writer

• Use your eyes and nose as a guide and ignore the sell-by date - Guardian user "hrhpod" on the Word of Mouth blog

• Watch your portion sizes and make sure plates are being completely cleared at mealtimes - Annette Richards on lovefoodhatewaste.com

• Make sure vegetables are stored correctly, with root vegetables kept in cool dark locations rather than refrigerators - "leuan" on Word of Mouth

• Leave most vegetables and fruit in the fridge until a day or two before you're going to use them: you could extend their life by a fortnight - lovefoodhatewaste.com

• Make DIY frozen ready meals by freezing excess food, such as mashed potato, into portions - Sarah Beeny
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/08/food-waste







A report released this week by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Waste Not, Want Not has found that as much as half of all food produced in the world is never eaten, but thrown away.

This is a shocking statistic, particularly in light of the fact that there are 925 million people still hungry in the world. Globally, we produce around four billion tonnes of food per year, but half of this is discarded.

In Europe, it is estimated that we bin half of the food that we buy, a habit that contributes greatly to the overall statistic. But before this food even ends up on our dinner plates, it has already gone through a great journey of selection. Our vegetables have been checked for shape, size and appearance and many of them – up to 30% – don’t make the cut, because they do not live up to the demands of consumers, who want them to be exactly the right shape, colour and size.

Global hunger continues to be a huge issue that needs to be tackled, and clearly this level of food waste is at odds with finding a solution. But hunger is closer to home than you might think and it’s not a problem exclusive to countries outside of the EU.

Food waste charity FareShare says that hunger is a growing problem in the UK. It estimates that 13.2 million people continue to live in poverty, with 5.8 million people living in deep poverty, which means that they struggle to afford everyday essentials like food.

The charity, which redistributes edible food wasted by food companies to 700 charities in the UK, says that it has seen a definite increase in requests for food over the past year, an indication that food poverty in the UK is a growing issue.

It says the organisations that it supports have seen an increase in the demand for food and that these charities fear demand will only increase in the future.

The scale of food waste in the UK is staggering and a guided tour through one of one FareShare’s depots across England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales could take you past hundreds of curry sauces, pallets stacked high with fruit juices and cereals and into vast fridges stacked with meats, fresh vegetables, herbs and fruits.

The charity estimates that if just 1% of surplus food in the UK was donated rather than thrown away, it could provide an additional 70 million meals to those who most need it.

CEO Lindsay Boswell, said that in distributing surplus foods to charities, FareShare is helping to turn the “shameful problem” of food waste into a “positive solution”.

It is estimated that Londoners alone throw away around 540,000 tonnes of food and drink that could have been eaten, which is not only wasteful, but can cost families around £50 a month.


]http://www.thisisrubbish.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/4125524836_f87bcdc04f_o-600x400.jpg
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 21:11

So a question if the so called golden rice could be bred by non gm methods, you guys would then agree its ok for human consumption and benefits would be noteworthy?

Another problem most farmers see is everybody outside the farming world thinks gm crops means chemical tolerant crops and that's really a furphy and its sad.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 21:31

I wonder how they will handle the new "synthetic wheat" FW ?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/03/2013 21:57

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
So a question if the so called golden rice could be bred by non gm methods, you guys would then agree its ok for human consumption and benefits would be noteworthy?


But they are completely different breeding methods, if you are crossing 2 plants from the same species, that sort of thing happens by itself in nature.
When you are removing one gene from a completely different plant and then you insert that gene with an antibiotic resistant gene marker, that is not naturally and is against the the laws of nature and would never happen naturally...only at the hand of man.
How can you think inserting a gene from a fish or pesticide or herbicide can be anything but dangerous?

Quote:
Another problem most farmers see is everybody outside the farming world thinks gm crops means chemical tolerant crops and that's really a furphy and its sad.

No, not all GM crops are.
But the ones like "Roundup ready" are designed so you can spray the whole entire crop with Roundup and the crop wont die.....
That is the major difference before you just sprayed the "weeds" at ground level and would have had minimum Herbicide contact with the crop, with "Roundup ready" the whole crop is sprayed with poison....no escape.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 03:13

ROM, you said this like it is a good thing: "...backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation".

Bill Gates, son of a eugenicist and proud owner of half a million Monsanto shares. Daddy Gates is a current co-chair of his son's Foundation and was head of the American Eugenics Society (later re-branded Planned Parenthood) which was founded on the concept that... Actually, research it yourself, you'll be truly shocked. Have to love this quote from Bill Jnr:

Quote:
Bill Gates: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed/heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”


Anyway, thanks for answering my question ROM about how Aussie farmers get rid of unwanted chemicals. I've now spent time learning about drumMUSTER and ChemClear. I've also learned that apparently 98% of this waste becomes fuel for cement kilns - which isn't quite what you said but you got the high temps part right.

I know only the specially marked and perfectly clean drums are accepted by drumMUSTER, and that drums still containing chemicals must have labelling intact and readable to be accepted by ChemClear. What I haven't learned, and not for lack of trying, was where the chemicals rejected by those two programmes end up and what the criteria is to deem something unacceptable to be taken.

I see also that there's a cost to farmers for the drums not marked with the logo indicating that the drum came from a participating chem company - apparently 99 chem companies in Aus are participating, but it seems the others choose not be part of it. I couldn't find anything to indicate how many don't in the ag/vet industry, or how much of their product sells. So, I have to guess that this stuff is simply stored on farms.

I did come across a story written by a farmer in an online farming magazine who during the recent east coast floods pondered the final resting place of a large drum of toxic chemicals (his words) that he saw floating away. He went on to ponder how many others like it might be doing the same and the consequences they might cause.

I actually do feel for farmers. This huge chemical dependence they have isn't a problem of their own making. I just hope that the ones breaking out of the 'norm' and making a success of it have enough voice to get through to the rest that it is possible. As YS has stated repeatedly, the RR GM revolution is creating even higher chemical use, not less as was promised when the technology was first rolled out, and the world is almost certainly going to suffer for it.

Then again, Fukushima Daichi's power blackout right now is certainly cause for concern, particularly those spent rods warming up in Unit 4.
Did that even make it onto tonight's tv news? Neh, no doubt it was filled with some Julia / Tony rubbish...
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 08:15

not quite right jax some of drum muster comments but im not going to argue as im just a farmer who uses drum muster so guess i wouldnt know
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 10:28

When faced with facts it' seems the easiest course of action is to ignore..

The fact is the food shortage is just a Myth that the majority of the population has been led to believe, there is more than enough food being produced now and to accommodate a growing population now and into the future without the need to grow anything extra. (why do you think the GM patent owners push the Myth so hard? so they can get their product out here before people realize or wake up... but by then it might already be too late.)

People need to shift their expectations that all the fresh food that they eat needs to be “perfect” that it has to be the correct size and correct shape, just because something might not be perfectly orange or slightly to big or small or even oval instead of round, does not make the fruit poisonous, it’s nutritional value is not decreased it is still exactly the same as the “perfect” food.

The general consensus is that everything has to be perfect, well everything grown is not perfect and people need to see that, and that is where supermarkets are to blame, as they are the one that set these standards and force these “perfect food” beliefs onto people and they just follow blindly along because that is what is expected of them and nobody will question it.....

ROM always bangs on about how people want “cheap” food, well it is their own stupid fault that food is priced the way it is! (and i am not labelling that comment directly at one person, just the general public who are too time poor and want everything “perfect and cheap..”) every single scrap of food that is sent to landfill from the farm to the supermarket adds to the bottom line of the product at it’s final destination (the supermarket for example)

Do you think if Coles or Woolies bought a batch of fruit and 1/2 of that batch “didn’t meet their perceived customers standards” well then half that batch would be turfed into the bins out the back destined for landfill, and do you think Coles/woolies will wear the cost? no, they wont they will just pass it on and add it onto the cost of your shopping, so you see if people sent a clear message to the likes of the supermarkets that “yes” we do want to have food that is not perfectly proportioned, then things might change and the only way for people to change their ways is to let them know thru forums like these....
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 12:02

yasy jax many others on here there perfect world would be to shut all farmers down and be 100% organic
thats life and there opinion which i respect but i try something called reality
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 12:11

This thing that keeps getting spouted out about shutting all farmers down is weird. Nobody I can see has ever said that - just a poor me line that keeps getting spat out everytime someone discusses how our food is produced. Farmers do an amazing job, don't get me wrong, but people keeping on talking about shutting all farmers down just because a debate is going on is just unhelpful. Reality is what is happening - looks like Yas, Jax and others are pretty well tuned into that one. Nobody is here to bash farmers, and from what I can see there is a lot of support for farmers on this thread.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 12:54

Farm Weather as with what jax and i were also stating is that GM crops were touted as being a marvellous innovation that would ensure that high chemical usage would be lowered to near nothing, this may have been true in the very begging but it is far from the case now, as chemical use with GM crops continues to rise at an alarming rate.

The thing that gets me and others who think along the same path, is that instead of admitting defeat and saying that the crops are a failure (and loose money) they go to the next step of GM where they use even more noxious chemicals to achieve the desired result, and a few years down the track when those chemicals start to fail what then? they will resort to even more noxious chems so the don't lose market share and profits?

As i have said all along it is the individuals that make this planet a great place, not the ones that just follow along with everything they are told.

Yes, chems do have a place if they are used how they were ORIGINALLY intended to,but at this point in time they are not and they are being abused and as a result no longer work.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 12:56

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
This thing that keeps getting spouted out about shutting all farmers down is weird. Nobody I can see has ever said that - just a poor me line that keeps getting spat out everytime someone discusses how our food is produced. Farmers do an amazing job, don't get me wrong, but people keeping on talking about shutting all farmers down just because a debate is going on is just unhelpful. Reality is what is happening - looks like Yas, Jax and others are pretty well tuned into that one. Nobody is here to bash farmers, and from what I can see there is a lot of support for farmers on this thread.


100% Thumbs up there. grin
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 15:32

Originally Posted By: ROM
Funny that! I always thought that organically grown stuff didn't use artificial fertilizers or chemicals but there doesn't seem to be any mention in that article that those Indian farmers forewent their usual fertilizers and herbicides and insecticides in achieving those yields.


Well here it is proof positive... no chemicals and no chemical fertilizers.

Miracle grow: Indian farmers smash crop yield records without GMOs

What if the agricultural revolution has already happened and we didn’t realize it? Essentially, that’s the idea in this report from the Guardian about a group of poverty-stricken Indian rice and potato farmers who harvested confirmed world-record yields of rice and potatoes. Best of all: They did it completely sans-GMOs or even chemicals of any kind.

[Sumant] Kumar, a shy young farmer in Nalanda district of India’s poorest state Bihar, had — using only farmyard manure and without any herbicides — grown an astonishing 22.4 tonnes of rice on one hectare [~2.5 acres] of land. This was a world record and with rice the staple food of more than half the world’s population of seven billion, big news.

It beat not just the 19.4 tonnes achieved by the “father of rice”, the Chinese agricultural scientist Yuan Longping, but the World Bank-funded scientists at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, and anything achieved by the biggest European and American seed and GM companies. And it was not just Sumant Kumar. Krishna, Nitish, Sanjay and Bijay, his friends and rivals in Darveshpura, all recorded over 17 tonnes, and many others in the villages around claimed to have more than doubled their usual yields.

Another Bihar farmer broke India’s wheat-growing record the same year. They accomplished all this without GMOs or advanced seed hybrids, artificial fertilizer or herbicide. Instead, they used a technique called System of Rice [or root] Intensification (SRI). It’s a technique developed in Madagascar in the 1980s by a French Jesuit and then identified and promulgated by Cornell political scientist and international development specialist Norman Uphoff.

SRI for rice involves starting with fewer, more widely spaced plants; using less water; actively aerating the soil; and applying lots of organic fertilizer. According to Uphoff’s SRI Institute website [PDF], the farmers who use synthetic fertilizer with the technique get lower yields than those who farm organically. How’s that for pleasant irony?

Petr Kosina / CIMMYTBrothers Mohen Singh and Raj Narayin Singh in their wheat field in Bihar.
The breadth of the results in Bihar have gotten international attention. TheGuardian reports that economist Joseph Stieglitz, a Nobel laureate and international development aficionado, visited the area last month. After seeing their amazing results, he declared the farmers “better than scientists.”

High praise aside, the technique is not without its detractors. Most western governments and agricultural scientists remain skeptical of the practice: Many challenge that the reported yields aren’t verified, there’s insufficient science behind the technique, and they worry it can’t scale to larger farms.

Achim Dobermann, deputy director of worldwide standard-bearers the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), dismissed the technique in comments to the Guardian:

SRI is a set of management practices and nothing else, many of which have been known for a long time and are best recommended practice … Scientifically speaking I don’t believe there is any miracle. When people independently have evaluated SRI principles then the result has usually been quite different from what has been reported on farm evaluations conducted by NGOs and others who are promoting it. Most scientists have had difficulty replicating the observations.

Given the paucity — or total absence — of independent testing done on GMOs and pesticides developed by companies like Monsanto and Syngenta, it’s galling to read of scientists complaining “there is not enough peer-reviewed evidence around SRI” and that “it is impossible to get such returns.”

Here’s where the potential conflicts of interest crop up: The IRRI is currently involved in developing GMO rice as a core component of a campaign to increase yields worldwide. This doesn’t entirely invalidate its position on SRI, but it points to the ideological divide in agriculture between those who believe in technology as the only solution to “feeding the world” and those who put faith in non-technological, agro-ecological techniques to accomplish the same.

(It’s also worth noting that the regions in India that invested heavily in Monsanto’s GMO RoundUp Ready cotton seeds are seeing yields collapse; Monsanto blames the crop failure on farmers. Grist reported recently on the even deeper tragedy many of these farmers are experiencing.)

Much of this divide comes from a belief among many scientists and most western governments that the developing world must adopt western-style industrial ag techniques in order to produce enough food. But that view is a fantasy: Even today, as the Guardian article observes, 93 percent of Bihar’s 100 million residents are subsistence farmers.

It’s delusional to expect that Bihar and the vast populations of Africa, Indonesia, and China will transform into western-style economies with western-style population distributions. Billions of people across the globe will remain subsistence farmers far into the future; what they require are farming techniques that can improve yields even modestly. Forcing regions that don’t have passable roads (much less electrification) to rely on the grace of multinational organizations to supply seeds, fertilizers, and chemicals seems borderline criminal.

SRI appears to offer an acceptable alternative for a variety of crops, including rice, potatoes, wheat, corn, beans, eggplant, onions, carrots, sugar cane, and even tomatoes.

For many westerners, including many western journalists, it’s difficult to separate the concept of “progress” from its inevitable modifier, “technological.” SRI may not be technology-based, but it’s science-based and sophisticated. It’s also continually field tested and improved through farmers’ own feedback. It’s exactly the kind of flexible, responsive system you’d demand from any truly sustainable agriculture — as opposed to the regimented, top-down application of chemical- and biotech-based approaches.

Plain old western snobbery shouldn’t be discounted, either. As agronomist Anil Verma put it in the Guardian article:

If any scientist or a company came up with a technology that almost guaranteed a 50% increase in yields at no extra cost they would get a Nobel prize. But when young Biharian farmers do that they get nothing.

Does SRI need more research? Absolutely. Can it be adapted to large-scale monocrop agriculture? Probably not. But that’s exactly the kind of agriculture that’s failing us and needs to be reassessed entirely.

Where does SRI go from here? In India, at least, Bihar alone is investing $50 million in expanding adoption. However, the Guardianreports that “Western governments and foundations are holding back, preferring to invest in hi-tech research.”

Meanwhile, Monsanto shows no signs of slowing down: Indications are that it will win its patent case before the Supreme Court and gain virtual total control of its seeds. This will enable it to continue charging inflated prices for a technology that provides modest yield increases, if any, and certainly nothing close to the 30-percent increase many agronomists are praying for.

It’s always possible we’ll wake up to the successes being pioneered by the unlikeliest of subjects — subsistence farmers in the far east. Until then, Monsanto’s technology-driven vision of agriculture is winning here in the west.
http://grist.org/food/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-crop-yield-records-without-gmos/
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 15:54

One indian farmer using horse manure as a fertilizer is held up a something everybody should be doing it to grow that 2300 million tonnes of grain each year that is needed by the 7 billions of humans on this planet.

Perhaps you should get into the horse manure game YS and become a multinational able to supply the horse manure to cover and fertilize the twenty two and half million hectares of the Australian annual grain crop.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 16:06

The point is that this sort of thing proves that it can be done on a larger scale, without resorting to chemicals and GM crops.

And if all of the Indian Farmers followed suit, there would be a glut....

There is nothing wrong with good ole fashioned horse crap i use it on my veggies, you just have to be careful with some of the undigested grass ... it gets stuck in your teeth! grin wink

And out of all the grain produced, how much of it is actually used for HUMAN consumption? HMMMMMMMM?

But of course some can only find a downside to everything.....
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/03/2013 19:29

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
not quite right jax some of drum muster comments but im not going to argue as im just a farmer who uses drum muster so guess i wouldnt know


I'm in no position to argue that topic, and nor do I wish to Farm Weather. I read the official sites of those programmes, perhaps I misinterpreted parts of it in what I typed? Anyway, I'm glad they exist because going by the numbers that are collected, without them you and every other farmer would have a hideous pile of drums stashed away or buried on your land somewhere. I suspect most farms have those anyway from times before these collections began. I'm glad the chem industry is taking part in the programmes too, although from what I can tell it's actually farmers paying for it with passed on costs. No surprises there. I'm not so sure that burning chemicals for fuel is a great idea mind you. Seems it's the best of only a bad bunch of choices to pick from.

I am not farmer bashing by the way, some of my favourite relatives and people are farmers. But lately some of the deepest frown lines I've seen live on the faces of farmers and those communities that survive because of them. It is not hard to see who is benefiting most in this global new world of farming.


Below excerpt taken from The Farm Crisis
Written by Steven Gorelick http://www.localfutures.org/publications/online-articles/the-farm-crisis

The article is much longer than this, and is well worth the read IMO.

Quote:
While the ideal 'local food system' may consist of small, diversified farms selling directly to consumers, the reality is that most often a mix of local, regional, national, and international production would still be available. The goal would not be to put an end to all trade in food, but to avoid transporting food thousands of miles when it could instead be produced next door.

Such a shift would help revitalise rural economies decimated by the global economy. Less money would be skimmed off the price of food by corporate middlemen, and far more would remain in the hands of farmers. This would be particularly the case with the direct marketing of food via farmers markets and farm stands, box schemes and other forms of community supported agriculture.

If farmers were not impelled to specialise their production in a few global commodities, the trend towards ever larger and more highly mechanised farms would abate. Since small farms use a proportionally higher amount of human labour than mechanised inputs — UK farms under 40 hectares, for example, provide five times more per-hectare employment than those over 200 hectares — a return to smaller farms would help bring back some of the 700,000 farm jobs the UK has lost during the last half-century of agricultural 'progress'.

Small shopkeepers in turn would be more able to survive if corporate supermarket chains selling the homogenised products of the global food system were not so heavily subsidised. Just as small farms create jobs, small shops provide more employment for the same amount of goods sold than do their corporate competitors.

Localised food systems would also be far better for the environment, in large measure because the ecological toll of needless food transport would be eliminated. Within the global food system, 'food miles' are immense: today, the food on the typical American family's dinner table has traveled some 1,500 miles on average, and is thus 'embedded' with significant amounts of transport energy, pollution, and greenhouse gases.

Not all this transport can be explained away by the greater availability of 'exotic' foods, since countries are often both importers and exporters of the same product. In 1996, for instance, Britain imported 47 million kilogrammes of butter, while exporting 49 million kilogrammes. Unnecessary trade of this sort benefits only the speculators and agribusiness corporations that take their cut every time food changes hands.

If policies encouraged farms to serve local, rather than global, markets, their production would be more diversified. A region with nothing but monocultures — like the many-thousand acre wheat fields of Kansas — can produce huge amounts of a single crop for global markets, but people need more than one or two foods. Diversified production is inherently more stable than monocultural production, and would reduce the need for herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides, thereby lessening the health and environmental damage they cause.

Perhaps the most fundamental ecological cost of the global food system arises from the way it systematically induces people to abandon diverse local goods — including their food — for the narrow range of monocultural products marketed by transnational corporations. There is no better example of this than the effort by Nestlé and other food corporations to convince Third World mothers that breast milk — the most ubiquitous and healthy of local foods — is inferior to the powdered version those companies sell. The same principle is being applied to virtually every other product, as people are made to believe that "imported equals good, local equals crap", in the words of an advertising executive in China.

Manipulating people around the world to prefer the homogenised products of the global food system may be good for fast-food corporations and agribusinesses like Archer-Daniels Midland — the self-proclaimed 'Supermarket to the World' — but for the planet as a whole it is an unmitigated disaster. It should be clear by now that the earth can neither supply the resources for nor absorb the wastes from even a small percentage of the world's people eating frozen TV dinners in their suburban homes, or driving their sports utility vehicles to McDonald's. Promising the rest of the world's population that they can and should do likewise — the implicit message of economic globalisation — is little short of criminal.

More sensible and responsible by far would be to promote patterns of food distribution that reduce food miles, that facilitate smaller-scale, decentralised markets, and that encourage greater dependence on locally-available foods.

Originally published in the June 2000 issue of The Ecologist magazine.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/03/2013 10:44

Monsanto's Death Grip on Your Food

March 18, 2013 |




Monsanto has yet another case pending in the court system, this time before the U.S. Supreme Court on the exclusivity of its genetically modified seed patents. Narrowly at issue is whether Monsanto retains patent rights on soybeans that have been replanted after showing up in generic stocks rather than being sold specifically as seeds, or whether those patent rights are “exhausted” after the initial planting. But more broadly the case also raises implications regarding control of the food supply and the patenting of life – questions that current patent laws are ill-equipped to meaningfully address.

On the specific legal issues, Monsanto is likely to win the case (they almost always do). The extant facts make this a relatively poor platform to serve as a test case of Monsanto’s right to exert such expansive powers. The farmer in this situation had previously purchased Monsanto soybeans for planting (back in 1999), and in this instance bought previously harvested soybeans with the intention of planting them – even spraying Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on them in the hopes that at least some of the generic stock would be of the so-called “Roundup Ready” variety.

Despite this unfortunate posture, the case does provide another opportunity for critical inquiry regarding the unprecedented and perverse level of control Monsanto is asserting over the food supply. It is estimated that 90 percent of the soybeans in the U.S. are genetically modified and thus subject to potential patents. A random handful of soybeans procured anywhere is likely to contain at least some Monsanto-altered beans. Such a near-monopoly effectively gives Monsanto the right to control access to a staple food item that is found in a wide range of consumer products.

Other variations on this theme include pollen from Monsanto corn (similarly dominant in the U.S. market) pollinating a farmer’s crop, or seeds from Monsanto-engineered grains being distributed by animals, winds, or waterways and commingling with non-GMO plantings. In each case, Monsanto could have a cause of action against an unwitting farmer by claiming patent infringement.

More broadly, and unlikely to be addressed in the instant case, is whether Monsanto (or any other company) should be able to patent seeds – the core of global food supplies, and thus of sustenance for billions of people – in the first place. Activists will decry the fact that Monsanto is patenting life, and this is indeed an Orwellian (or perhaps a Huxleyan) prospect, to be sure. Yet I would submit that Monsanto is actually patenting death, which is potentially even more disconcerting.

Consider that by exerting this level of control over the food supply, Monsanto is rapidly creating a world in which people have to pay fealty to the corporation in order to grow food and/or consume it. In this sense, Monsanto gains enormous power to determine who is allowed to eat – and thus who lives or dies. Consider further that Monsanto’s patents also include technologies in which seeds are sold that cannot propagate themselves, resulting in plants terminating rather than perpetuating, requiring farmers to have to go back to the “company store” in order to replant their fields.

In the case currently before the Court, shades of the latter issue are present, with the question being whether the seeds of the seeds of Monsanto creations retain their exclusive patent rights – possibly in perpetuity. This sort of argument might give us cause to wonder whether an animal (or even a human being, someday?) who consumes these proprietary foods could be implicated in such assertions if they are somehow genetically altered in the process. Perverse slippery slopes aside, the permeation of patentable materials throughout the food chain is by now a clear and present danger.
http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-death-grip-your-food
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/03/2013 14:45

Consider further that Monsanto’s patents also include technologies in which seeds are sold that cannot propagate themselves, resulting in plants terminating rather than perpetuating, requiring farmers to have to go back to the “company store” in order to replant their fields.

nothing really new in that yas been the case for decades basically bit of misunderstanding by the author not you the author.
cheers enjoy the wind
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/03/2013 16:30

That's the case with hybrids, you can't collect seed from them to use again. They're sterile.

Similar thing with these new Jazz apples, they taste amazing but you have to sign an agreement with the copyright owners (and you have to buy a minimum number) that you won't try to propagate them etc, they own full rights to the variety. Only difference is you probably could propagate the Jazz apples.

I've been growing those low GI spuds Coles sell, Carisma. They grow readily from the spuds you buy, very fast-growing spud. But they're copyright so no one can sell them.
Posted by: pogonantha

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/03/2013 18:56

Originally Posted By: ant
That's the case with hybrids, you can't collect seed from them to use again. They're sterile.



Thats actually incorrect Ant...not all hybrids are sterile..seed companies genetically engineer their patented seed to be so for obvious reasons..
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/03/2013 19:30

There are actually a couple of other very good reasons for making hybrids sterile.

One reason is to stop contamination of non hybrid crops by hybrid seeds growing in those crops either when another crop is planted on the field next season or the seeds are carried from one field to the next by harvesters, machinery, wild and tame animals in the fir and feces and wind and storm blowing, washing and carrying.

The second reason is that the following generations of hybrids are often unstable, they will start to revert to one of their parents lines which might be quite deficient in some need criteria but has other criteria which made it a very good parent to cross for hybrid which can give much higher yields, quality, disease tolerance, drought or water logging tolerance and etc and etc.

Hybrids of course use the pollen from the selected male parent to cross with the female parent from which the seed is produced.
So when bulking up hybrid seed for sale the field will have mostly the female parent line planted but at regular intervals there will be the male line planted usually depending on the crop in just a single row in amongst the female line.

Some hybrid lines are good, some mediocre and some, well after one try the farmers just don't buy them any more and the company does it's money, a lot of money, used to develop the hybrid.

It's the farmers choice on what he / she grows and nobody forces anything onto anybody and the farmers are a pretty hard bunch to convince except by results and the money coming in after the crop is harvested.

If the grain buyers don't like some variety then it's not grown unless the yield is phenomenal and the high yield makes up for a lower price, a judgement farmers have to make every day when choosing varieties to sow about 3/4's of the year ahead and with no guaranteed prices or anything else come harvest time those 8 or 9 months later.

Like somebody taking on a contract to build an edifice or provide a service but not knowing how much they will be paid at all after the contract and only after the contract is carried out to the buyer's satisfaction and is completely finished.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/03/2013 12:04

What give one single company the right to Monopolize seed production and set what ever price it wants?

Look at what is happening in the states now, with the Monsanto Rider bill that is going thru Senate, basically it allows the likes of Monsanto to do what they like and get away with it! now how that is itself is not corrupt/Monopolizing i will never know.
And these people just let them get away with it....

If passed, an amendment in the Agricultural Appropriations Bill will not just allow, but require the secretary of agriculture to grant permits for planting or cultivating GM crops – even if a federal court has given an injunction against it.

Basically, all Monsanto and other biotech companies have to do is ask and the industry gets its way. Issues like crop contamination, damage to farmers or consumers, courts orders or USDA studies all go out the window and the biotech industry cashes in.

Organizations like Food Democracy Now are in a panic, calling all to petition against the bill, which they say “fundamentally undermines the concept of judicial review and would strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, consumers and the environment.”

Representative Peter DeFazio has been trying to push through an amendment that would kill the havoc-wreaking rider. He has the support of organizations like Organic Consumers Associations, Center for Food Safety and others. Their warnings have been circulating the web, gathering attention and support – but will they be enough to sway the House?

"Ceding broad and unprecedented powers to industry, the rider poses a direct threat to the authority of US courts, jettisons the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) established oversight powers on key agriculture issues and puts the nation's farmers and food supply at risk, " claimed the Center for Food Safety in a recent statement.

But how has such a rider even made it on to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill? According to Tom Philpot of Mother Jones, agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston is responsible for inserting this pro-industry provision, which, many argue, has nothing to do with agricultural appropriations. Interestingly enough, Kingston was also voted “legislator of the year for 2011-2012″ by none other than the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto and DuPont.

The media is speculating that the House of Representatives will vote on the bill on July 23rd, after allegedly delaying the issue twice earlier this month. But one thing is certain – if passed, this one line in a 90-page document will mean Frankenfood for consumers, losses for farmers and huge profits for biotech companies that don’t appear to care much for anything else.

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-immunity-court-862/

The last bold says it all.....
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/03/2013 13:58

When our readers get past all the spittle blowing about Monsanto in the above post here are a couple of Ag sites showing some of the seed trials and companies involved.

But first an explanation on seed sales of different crop varieties between farmers particularly referring to the cereals like wheat ,barley and oats and the various pulse crops such as peas, beans, chickpeas, lentils , faba beans , broad beans plus the various fodder crops for hay and animal feed and etc.

For nearly all varieties there is a license system of payment for crops in Australia called "end point royalties" which took a long time to negotiate but which is now accepted by all AG industries as the norm.
The farmer pays a small license fee on each tonne of crop sold to the owner of that variety .

Consequently for some varieties and crop variety breeding organisations in exchange for the End Point Royalty he is free to sell that variety of seed to other farmers for their own crops.
The EPR is of course the means by which crop breeding organisations raise funds for further new variety breeding and pay the long and expensive testing and analysis of any new varieties before release.

If a variety does not measure up in the farmer's opinion or has a significant flaw found when grown into the farmer's fields then that money used to bred the new variety is just lost as it is in any commercial organisation that makes a wrong decision.

Obviously if the variety doesn't perform or has some faults or is inferior in some critical aspect perhaps just a soil type problem for the variety but Ok in other areas with a different soil type then the farmers make a judgement on whether to grow that variety or not.
Looking at the list and doing a survey which is an annual event for the largest entirely Grower Run farm research organisation in australia , the Birchip Cropping Group in Victoria's southern Mallee, plus input from the various Ag research organisations the local farmers soon figure out which varieties do best in their area

As I posted above in a previous post, small samples are taken from each load of grain delivered and various tests are then carried out in centralised laboratories such as one set up in Bendigo.

When the grain is delivered, the farmer has to declare the variety of the crop he is delivering and then this is checked against the sample in the laboratory tests so integrity is maintained in the system.
This maintains and ensures milling and baking and quality of the various groups of varieties as they are delivered to separate bins or stacks for sale to specific markets according to that varietal group's varietal qualities.

All new grain varieties bred and released in Australia have to go through the independent industry funded "National Variety Trials" where they are grown out and the various claims on yields , qualities and etc are independently confirmed.

If you go to the National Variety Trials site you will find a large amount of information of the various characteristics of a whole lot of varieties of various crop types.

As there is a lot of quite grossly wrong and inflated and ill informed rants on this thread about payments and etc for crops taken, no doubt straight from violently anti farming organisations then a look at the NVT > Resources [ menu panel at top ] > End point royalties will provide a very good indication on the number of organisations that are breeding varieties of crops in Australia.

Including a large number of varieties that are publicly owned and financed by both government and farmers through a compulsory levy of at least 1% on up to 3% of their gross income from any particular crop type as can be seen in this long list.

This URL is the list for the current and still to be released or recently released wheat varieties on test for this period alone and do not contain the dozens of other past tested varieties which are still grown in many areas.

http://varietycentral.com.au/varieties-and-rates/2010-2/wheat

To give some idea on the tools that farmers are using to raise productivity the Birchip Cropping Group also promote through their organisation a university originated computer tool called Yield Prophet which has formalised all the calculations and decisions that a farmer has to make first before sowing the crop and then during the growing of that crop.
It then also provides an estimate of the probable and hoped for crop yield some months in advance of harvesting the crop.

If the growing season's forecast April to Oct rainfall amounts and forecast temperature and timing for the farmer's area of operation from the BOM were at all accurate the yield estimates from this program would be very good but Nature has a way of upsetting the best laid plans of mice and men.

Farming in our age is a very long way indeed from a back yard expert's beliefs and rigid opinions apparently based on nothing more than what has been read in some rabid green anti farming web sites somewhere.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/03/2013 14:06

Mate calm down! On that last post apparently those who disagree with you are

Spittle blowers
Grossly wrong
Ill informed ranters
From a violent anti farming group
Backyard experts with rigid opinions
Readers of rabid green anti farming websites

How about taking the personal rants out and sticking with the debate and facts, then we can all have a happier time and actually talk the points? Just a thought...
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/03/2013 14:08

Some respect for farmers instead of a constant slandering would should also be on the plate Kev
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/03/2013 14:35

No one here is "constantly slandering" farmers at all, and I agree that the way you slip derogative descriptions about anyone you disagree with into practically every post you make is not useful at all.

Read "The Farm Crisis" link I posted on the last page to get a better understanding of what I (and I suspect many others) see is the problem with modern farming. It is not all about one chemical company, it is about the globalisation of something that would be far smarter on a more localised level. That said though, the history, political connections, current agenda and demands of Monsanto is news that needs to be shared, whether you like it or not.

It is not normal to have the world's seed supplies in the hands of one company (particularly one with a history like Monsanto) and that is where we are heading. I can't believe you think that is okay.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/03/2013 17:15

my last post on this forum but honestly you guys have trouble grasping things

i say it again go and visit or better still work on a farm for 12 months

someone mentioned a while back "poor me" as a farmer comment youll never here that from my mouth or roms and most farmers to be honest

and do a bit more research into your arguments

having been lucky enough to travel through extensively through scandanavia and germany and switzeland in 2010 and staying with real people not on a tour for 4 months what the average consumers in europe wants is far different than we are lead to beleive and the minority of people rule things over there.

really thought there would be anti gm and pro organic anti chemical everything wasnt the case a real eye opener and some of you guys reckon we use alot of chems in australia go to europe

a daughter of one of my freinds worked at supemarket and every night came home with organic veggies and fruit for free so was good by i said why, her reply to expensive people wont pay and only keeps for 2 days ate best, the waste was phenominal as yasi shows in photos of possibly organic waste but maybe not.

anyway im out of here rom, as you know with farmers there is always middle ground and resolution in life but cant see it happening here
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/03/2013 20:14

Originally Posted By: Jax

It is not normal to have the world's seed supplies in the hands of one company (particularly one with a history like Monsanto) and that is where we are heading. I can't believe you think that is okay.

My thoughts exactly.... makes you wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and the seed market was about to be taken over by Greenpeace or a "Ludite Hippie" Group, could you imagine the stink that some would kick up then?

So ROM you basically think it is fine for a company like Monsanto to be able to do what they like with no consequences?
Have a look for your self at the "rider" amendment.
You think it is fine for a company like Monsanto to have a Monopoly over everything?
Would you think the same way if it was say Coles or Woolies that were partaking in Said monopoly?

It is also funny when the proof there in your face (about the food wastage issue) you choose to ignore it? maybe because you have nothing

You have your own agenda and baically unless you are a true blue bonifidy farmer with 6 generations of farmers in the ground under you then you know nothing...it seems nothing anyone, does, says or shows you as proof will not change or open your mind..
Proof is in the puddin' with your constant "greenie" bashing, in other words ..can't substantiate an argument then attack and discredit the original poster.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/03/2013 09:23

So ROM, you seem to think headlines like this are fine? or nothing wrong with them?.

Congress passes legislation to protect Monsanto and GMO products from lawsuits

On March 26, a rider placed in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill which would protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits due to their Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) products, reached the Senate floor after passing the House last week. This rider, which was placed by an anonymous Congressman at the last minute before the House vote, was missed by most Representatives, and ignored during debate as the full bill passed through the Senate.

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

As the Washington Times points out, the provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. - Russia Today

GMO lobbying at both the state and national levels run into the hundreds of million of dollars. In August of 2012, biotech giants spent tens of millions of dollars alone just to lobby against Prop 37, which would have forced companies to label all product containing GMO materials. This proposition was defeated despite the enormous grass roots efforts by the people in California.

Currently, many European countries, as well as many Asian countries, outlaw GMO as both a health risk, and as a detriment to food crops. Substantial testing of animals show that not only do many abstain from eating GMO food when offered, but those that do accept it have been known to grow tumors from corn based GMO products.

GMO sales are a multi-billion industry, with Monsanto earning over $1.5 billion in the first quarter of 2012 alone. In fact, Monsanto's power over legislators to push for more GMO induction in the food supply has even allowed one of their executives to become the current head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

With Congress passing a new farm appropriations bill that protects GMO companies from litigation for health concerns over their products, and the head of the FDA being a former executive of biotech giant Monsanto, the protections that guard the food Americans eat have been supplanted by the massive lobbying power and money by the GMO industry.

http://www.examiner.com/article/congress...s-from-lawsuits

The gist that i can gather from making a move like that is Monsanto and the like must know that their days are numbered and people are waking up to them, but by the time the fully do, they wont be able to sue Monsanto and GM will be so wide spread like a cancer it will be hard to get rid of!
Now how democratic is that?

Originally Posted By: ROM
Some respect for farmers instead of a constant slandering would should also be on the plate Kev


Either you don't read the whole article or just flick thru and see a bold part that says "farmer" so you think you are being attacked, if you took the time to READ the article it actually state that they are SUPPORTING FARMERS!
Quote:
if passed, this one line in a 90-page document will mean Frankenfood for consumers, losses for farmers and huge profits for biotech companies that don’t appear to care much for anything else.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/03/2013 09:23

Surprised? Monsanto Openly Wrote Own Monsanto Protection Act

It should come as no surprise to many of you to find out that Monsanto actually authored the wording of its own Monsanto Protection Act hidden in the recently passed and signed Continuing Resolution spending bill. How could a major corporation write its own laws and regulations, you ask?

Quite frankly I think it’s important to understand that the entire Senate passed the bill containing the Protection Act, but the politician who actually gave Monsanto the pen in order to write their very own legislation is no others than Roy Blunt — a Republican Senator from Missouri. As the latest IB Times article reveals, the Missouri politician worked with Monsanto to write the Monsanto Protection Act. This was confirmed by a New York news report I will get to shortly.

As you probably know I do not play the political clown game of left versus right, and instead highlight corruption and wrongdoing wherever it is found — regardless of party affiliation. In the case of Senator Blunt, he admits to colluding with Monsanto, a corporation that has literally been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which workers are unable to leave or eat (among many worse misdeeds).

This is one of the most blatant offenses against the citizens of the United States I’ve seen in a long time. A population that Blunt swore to serve. It’s not for the United States public at all, and it’s a serious matter that I don’t think is properly understood. The passing of this bill into law means that Monsanto is now immune from federal courts regarding any suspension or action on their crops that have been deemed to be dangerous to the people (or the environment).



This means crops that were approved and later found to damage the environment or the public will be immune from United States government action. Theoretically, one million studies could find that Monsanto’s latest creation was causing a massive cancer wave and under this law Monsanto could continue to peddle the crop to the public. The federal courts would (or will) be helpless to stop Monsanto, effectively giving Monsanto power over the entire branch of the United States government. Food Democracy Now, a major activist organization that organized signatures to fight the Monsanto Protection Act, described the rider:

“The Monsanto Protection Act would force the USDA to allow continued planting of any GMO crop under court review, essentially giving backdoor approval for any new genetically engineered crops that could be potentially harmful to human health or the environment.”

Sounds like a great idea, right?

Serving Corporations, Not People
Senator Roy Blunt and those who knowingly passed the Monsanto Protection Act (including President Obama who signed it into law just last night) have chosen to serve corporations over people. Ironic, really, as corporations legally are people — a legal area commonly used to avoid real jail sentences for major CEOs and executives who knowingly were involved with the deaths of consumers around the world.

It’s sad, really. I read up on Senator Blunt, and he does seem to constantly side with corporations over the public. Even on his Wikipedia page one line reads that Blunt ”consistently sided with Big Oil and other dirty polluters over a cleaner, more sustainable future.”I was even able to find a quote by Blunt defending his decision to allow Monsanto to write its own regulation through the Monsanto Protection Act. He told the NY Daily News in defense of the Monsanto Protection Act and his relationship with the company in writing the rider:

“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it.”


I think Blunt is confused over which ‘people’ he is serving. I created this image to call Blunt out on his open decision to side with Monsanto over the public:



You can contact Senator Blunt through his website and let him know what you think about his decision to let Monsanto write its own Protection Act. No longer can we sit idly by while corporate juggernauts like Monsanto triumph over the people through swindling and deceit. Share this article, the image, and publicly denounce all politicians willing to sell their souls to Monsanto.



Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own-monsanto-protection-act/#ixzz2OsKbYshE

Now anyone would have to see there is something 100% wrong with that! now how on earth any other corporation would/could could get away with that?

What is monsanto's game to take over the whole globe? Own everything?

Quote:
'Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

5.) It sets a terrible precedent...the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler -- who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations -- told the New York Daily News.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/03/2013 10:42

My youngest son has just started his thesis for his electrical engeneering degree. It is a wireless warning system for long trawl nets (1.6klm) that can detect large sea critters such as dugongs, whales, dolphins,turtles, stingrays etc and sends a warning to the trawler operator. The theory is that this will be linked to an automatically controlled extrusion device that will see said critters defelected away from the mouth of the net. The whole concept is to minimise by-catch, reduce damage to environment and maximise catches. His thesis area is in micro controllers and switching equipment that has to be contained within a standard float.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 30/03/2013 14:05

Monsanto Bullies Small Farmers Over Planting Harvested GMO Seeds

Does Monsanto own all future generations of genetically modified seeds that it sells? The Missouri-based agribusiness giant wants farmers to pay a royalty to plant any seed that descended from a patented original. The legal decision has ramifications for other patented “inventions” that reproduce themselves like strands of DNA.

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared to side with Monsanto in oral arguments heard this past February in a lawsuit that the world’s largest seed company has brought against Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75 year old farmer in Indiana, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on a small farm of 600 acres (242 hectares).

The impending court decision, which will probably come this June, has sparked alarm among consumer advocates.

“Judges don’t understand agriculture,” says Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, a Washington DC based watchdog group. “The Monsantos of the world have everyone convinced through a massive misinformation campaigns that biotech crops are essential to feed the world, and patents are necessary for biotech crops. So there’s this patina of virtuous innovation when in fact what biotechnology is really used for primarily is to develop pesticide-promoting crops.”

The crop in question is Roundup Ready soybeans, which are genetically-altered to be resistant to glyphosate, the main chemical in Roundup, a pesticide also manufactured by Monsanto.

Bowman first fought back when Monsanto sued him in 2007 for patent infringement. At the time, Bowman was a regular Monsanto customer. Like the 275,000 other U.S. farmers who buy “Roundup Ready” seeds, Bowman bought his seeds from Monsanto and signed a contract stating that he would not save Roundup seeds to replant. He didn’t.

But from 1999 to 2007, in addition to his usual order of Roundup Ready soybeans for seed, Bowman purchased commodity-grade soybeans, called “commodity grain,” from a local grain elevator where farmers like himself sell their crops. Typically, commodity grain is used for animal feed. Bowman, however, decided to use the commodity grain – a mix comprising of many different varieties of soybeans including some Roundup Ready seeds – to plant a second, lower yield soybean harvest later in the season.

“What I wanted was a cheap source of seed,” Bowman told National Public Radio, a U.S. network.

Roundup Ready was first marketed in 1996, and it was a hit with farmers in the U.S., the largest producer of genetically modified food in the world. These days, more than 90 percent of U.S.-grown soybeans are Roundup Ready, Monsanto said in court documents. As a result, organic farmers say, it’s getting harder to find diverse strains of traditional, heirloom soybeans.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that some of the soybeans Bowman took home from the grain elevator contained Monsanto’s patented soybeans. For eight years, Bowman planted the commodity-grade soybeans for his second harvest, sprayed Roundup on them, harvested the plants that grew and kept the seeds they produced to plant later. It’s these “third generation” seeds that are at the heart of the Supreme Court case now.

Bowman saw nothing wrong with what he was doing. “All through history we have always been allowed to go to an elevator and buy commodity grain and plant it,” he told the New York Times.

Not any more, if companies like Monsanto who control most of the global commercial seed market, have their way. The big seed companies use a strategy to attack seed savers that consists of three stages: “investigations; coerced settlements; and, if that fails, litigation,” says the Center for Food Safety.

To date, in the U.S., Monsanto has sued 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses for alleged seed patent violation. Monsanto has won every single case. The company was awarded nearly $24 million from just 72 of those judgments, the Center for Food Safety found.

Additionally, Freese estimates that as many as 4,500 small farmers who could not afford legal representation have been forced to accept out-of-court settlements. He estimates, based on Monsanto’s documents, that those farmers paid Monsanto between $85 and $160 million in out-of-court settlements.

“As early as 2003, Monsanto had a department of 75 employees with a budget of $10 million for the sole purpose of pursuing farmers for patent infringement,” the Center for Food Safety stated in a new report, “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers.” “Agrichemical companies earn billions of dollars each year, and farmers cannot possibly compete against such resources.”

“Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products,” the company states on its website in its defense. “Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers. Without the protection of patents, this would not be possible.”

The Center for Food Safety wants federal, state and local governments to work together to regulate the biotechnology industry, using a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1970 as a guideline. The 42 year old Plant Variety Protection Act allowed intellectual property laws to be applied to new and distinct plants.

But it had an exemption for farmers to save seeds of such plants and replant them so long as they do not resell the seed. Plant breeders are also allowed to use protected seed for further breeding work. The law was designed to protect one seed company – say Monsanto – from another – like DuPont. This law did not view farmers as competitors to companies.

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-hybrid plants could be patented. The final decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who incidentally worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Since then, courts have tended to side with seed companies suing for patent infringement.

“This (Plant Variety Protection Act) has been largely sidelined now by the patent system,” says Freese. “Now companies with patents have this inordinate control over seeds, and they can criminalize seed saving.

Bowman spent $31,000 of his own money on legal fees before a law firm agreed to defend him for free. If Monsanto wins the case against him, he’ll have to pay almost $85,000 to the corporation, which made $7 billion in profits in fiscal year 2012.

Bowman’s legal argument rests on a 150-year old Supreme Court common law known as the “patent exhaustion doctrine.” His lawyer, Mark P. Walters, argued that Monsanto’s patent did not apply to seeds descended from Roundup Ready soybeans that were then sold to a grain elevator and mixed with other soybeans.

Monsanto contended that Bowman, by growing and saving seeds from the commodity soybeans he bought from the grain elevator, was making “copies” of the original, patented Monsanto product.

Two lower courts agreed with Monsanto. In 2009, district court in Indiana awarded the company more than $84,000. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, upheld the decision in 2011.

In October 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, despite objections made by the Obama administration, which said the judges should let the previous rulings stand. The U.S. government filed a friend of the court brief in support of Monsanto, stating that “the Court’s decision could also affect the enforcement of patents for man-made cell lines, DNA molecules, some nanotechnologies and other technologies that involve self-replicating features.”

Not surprisingly, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Business Software Alliance, Intellectual Property Owners Association and other industry and research groups also filed friend of the court briefs on Monsanto’s side.

On February 19, Supreme Court justices heard both sides of the case.

“Without the ability to limit reproduction of soybeans containing this patented trait, Monsanto could not have commercialized its invention, and never would have produced what is, by now, the most popular agricultural technology in America,” Monsanto’s lawyer and former U.S. solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, told the court.

Waxman was allowed to talk uninterrupted at length, “which is usually a sign of impending victory,” the New York Times reported.

In contrast, the justices fired a volley of skeptical questions at Bowman’s attorney, Mark P. Walters. When Walters argued that Monsanto’s patent didn’t apply to subsequent generations of seeds after the initial sale, Antonin Scalia, another judge, interrupted him.

“Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if, as soon as they sold the first one, anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” Scalia asked.

Later, Walters argued that Bowman was “making use” of the commodity grain that he bought on the open market when he planted it, not making a copy of an original Monsanto seed. He was rebuked by Stephen Breyer, another of the judges.

“You can feed it to animals, you can feed it to your family, make tofu turkeys,” Breyer interjected. “But… you can’t pick up those seeds that you’ve just bought and throw them in a child’s face. You can’t do that because there’s a law that says you can’t do it. Now, there’s another law that says you cannot make copies of a patented invention.”

“If the concept is the sale of a parent plant exhausts the patentholder’s rights… we would have to go all the way back to the very first Roundup Ready plant that was created,” said Melissa Arbus Sherry, the lawyer representing the Obama administration. “Every single Roundup Ready seed in existence today is the progeny of that one parent plant and… that would eviscerate patent protections. There would be no incentive to invest, not just in Roundup Ready soybeans or not even agricultural technology.”

Walters believes there is still a possibility that the Supreme Court could reverse the decision or send the case back to the lower courts for retrial. He said three of the justices appeared to sympathize with the idea that a farmer ought to be able to sell, plant or grow new seeds from ones he buys on the open market.

“There are many interests: biotech, seed companies, large and small farmers. They’re not aligned,” Walters told CorpWatch. “Small farmers are not very well organized. They’re not a strong voice in Congress. Right now one company with a particular stake is trying to make a case based on a set of particular facts.”

Both Walters and Freese agree that in today’s political climate, it would be an uphill battle to pass legislation that would regulate the powerful biotech industry. Last year, Monsanto, other agribusiness and food companies spent more than $45 million to defeat a proposition in California that would have required labels on some genetically modified foods sold at stores.

Meanwhile, Bowman has to drive out of the state of Illinois – to Ohio - in order to find cheap, non-GMO commodity soybeans he can plant without the threat of a patent infringement suit. Every time, he does this, he passes numerous grain elevators, all of which brim with soybeans.
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/03...sted-gmo-seeds/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/04/2013 09:49

Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

The pesticide industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public.

This report, co-authored by international scientists and researchers, reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.The facts are these:
Industry has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses
The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate.
But this information was not made public. On the contrary, the pesticide industry and Europe’s regulators have jointly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe. As a result, Roundup is used by home gardeners and local authorities on roadsides, in school grounds, and in other public areas, as well as in farmers’ fields.

As recently as 2010, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was “no evidence of teratogenicity” (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.

BVL made this comment in its rebuttal of an independent scientific study by Argentine scientists which showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in experimental animals at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide.

In its rebuttal of the Argentine study, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate’s safety the industry studies submitted for the Commission’s 2002 approval of glyphosate (the approval that is currently in force in Europe).

But the authors of the new report obtained the approval documents and found that contrary to BVL’s claim, industry’s own studies, conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in experimental animals.

Download the report – Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

By Michael Antoniou, Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib, C. Vyvyan Howard, Richard C. Jennings, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Claire Robinson, John Fagan. Published by Earth Open Source, June 2011

Monsanto’s Response to – Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

EOS Response to Monsanto – Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?



New data on health aspects of Glyphosate? Response to Earth Open Source’s report from the German ministry for risk assessment, BfR

In the interests of transparency and so that readers can check the accuracy of the statements in our report, we have made available those parts of Germany¹s 1998 draft assessment report (DAR) on glyphosate that we cite.

The files are as follows:

Volume 1_Glyphosat_02.pdf
Volume 2, Part A, Annex A: List of Tests and Studies
Volume 3-1_Glyphosat_05.pdf
Volume 3-1_Glyphosate_04.pdf
FullReport_Glyphosat_03.pdf
FullReport_Glyphosat_04.pdf
FullReport_Glyphosat_05.pdf
Questions in the EU Parliament
The following EU parliamentary questions to the European Commission (EC) have been asked about Roundup, some of them about our report:

Glyphosate: concern over the delayed glyphosate review, 3 Oct 2011, Questionfrom Sir Graham Watson (ALDE), Answerfrom the EC
Cultivation of genetically-engineered seed and use of Roundup weed killer in EU Member States, 13 Sept 2011,Question from Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), Answer from the EC
Glyphosate: recent and worrying reports, 1 Aug 2011, Question from Linda McAvan (S&D), Answer from the EC
Review of glyphosate, 20 July 2011,Question from William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), Answer from the EC
Glyphosate: using Monsanto’s research on the substance to inform decisions on its safety for use, 20 July 2011, Questionfrom Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), Answer from the EC
Review of glyphosate, 12 July 2011,Question from William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), Answer from the EC
Suppression of information about the side effects of glyphosate in the herbicide ‘Roundup’, 30 June 2011,Question from Franz Obermayr (NI),Answer from the EC
Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects, 27 June 2011,Question from Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE), Answer from the EC
Roundup herbicide spray, 27 June 2011,Question from Andreas Mölzer (NI), Answerfrom the EC
Consequences for the EU of the discovery of a new pathogen in Monsanto’s GMO products, 13 March 2011, Question from Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), Answer from the EC
Renewal of registration of glyphosate, 10 Feb 2011, Question from Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE), Answer from the EC
Error in the Commission’s answer to my written question on glyphosate, 15 Dec 10, Question from Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE), Answer from the EC
Safety standards regarding widely used pesticide, 1 Oct 2010, Question from Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE), Answerfrom the EC

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/02...pt-in-the-dark/
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 07:03

Interesting... So Yasified, would you be able to enlighten me and others as to exactly how much Roundup Ready/GMO grain finds its way into the human food supply chain directly? Say for instance, what percentage of Corn Flakes sold world wide is flattened GMO corn?
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 12:05

Maybe you could use the tool in front of you and under your fingertips to try and find that information out for yourself Andy.

As for the big red sign above, I couldn't agree more YS.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 13:29

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
Interesting... So Yasified, would you be able to enlighten me and others as to exactly how much Roundup Ready/GMO grain finds its way into the human food supply chain directly? Say for instance, what percentage of Corn Flakes sold world wide is flattened GMO corn?



Funny thing is..
Quote:
For one, Kellogg's admits it doesn't use GMOs in the products it sells in Europe (which doesn't tolerate GMO contamination of imported foods).


Yet in The USA nearly every Kellogg's product contains some form of GMO component.

At the moment anywhere between 80-90% of all Corn,cotton,canola and soy comes from genetically modified stock in the USA, so chances are if anything says it contains imported and local ingredients it could potentially come from the US, anything that contains High fructose corn syrup would more than likely come from the states and sourced from GM crops.

Quote:
The study, published Sept 19 in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicity, raises serious concerns not just about the pesticide Roundup, but about the Roundup-ready corn, which comprises 70 per cent of the corn grown in the U.S.


Now they are trying to take over the sugar market..

Quote:
GE sugar beets are designed to withstand strong doses of Monsanto's controversial broad spectrum Roundup herbicide. Studies indicate farmers planting Roundup Ready crops spray large amounts of the herbicide, contaminating both soil and water. Farmers planting GE sugar beets are told they may be able to apply the herbicide up to five times per year.
Roundup, also known as glyphosate, is linked to cancer. Monsanto has successfully lobbied to increase human exposure to its carcinogen.
When it first commercialized its Roundup Ready crops, Monsanto applied for and was granted an increase in the level of herbicide residue allowed to remain on the crop.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 13:51

TRANSGENIC BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION HAS REACHED THE EARTH'S WATER SUPPLY.

A new study has found antibiotic resistance from GMOs in the microbes from 6 Chinese rivers and have shown resistance to the first-through the fourth-generation of cephalosporin drugs, indicating both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria have been affected by the artificial plasmid vectors (the GMO DNA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalosporin). Antibiotic resistance in free-living bacteria will have a tremendous effect on the future effectiveness of vaccines.
In short, this is an indication that GMOS have permeated the globe to a unknown extent and the risks are even more unknown. I don't think there's any going back from this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23215020

Posted by: explorer

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 13:54

Unbelievable that there is still people completely oblivious to all this!!! For some, no matter how red and big the signs are, they will still no see the toxic reality in their plates ...
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/04/2013 22:30

So when you refer to GM, you are thereby deliberately implying that majority of grain in the human food supply chain is of the Roundup resistant variety? This is the distinct impression you give me given you are spending an awful lot of time linking to 'research' linking cancer with grains that are likely to be GM Roundup resistant.

Now I'd be interested in seeing whether you'd be able to pinpoint some specific and most importantly, independent, sources that would be able to contradict something which I've read that states that nearly all Roundup resistant varieties of grains have poor palatability and are therefore used in the biofuel and oil industry.

I've also read that Monsanto does offer a service, at no cost to the landholder, where they will come in and remove Roundup resistant plants that a farmer may find and may not wish to have.

So from what I can see, the arguments that you've put forth seem to prey on people's lack of knowledge in these areas. Now what really concerns me is that the popularising of these types of ideas could ultimately cause a lot more distress and hardship to a vast number of people. We've already seen a callous disregard for people that are suffering right now because of supposed problems that are conjured up by all manner of theories in relation to Golden Rice. From what I can tell, you're happy to drive a wedge between society's haves and have nots, I'd bet my last dollar though, that you're happy to see that wedge there providing your on the side not suffering from an empty belly or malnutrition. This type of behaviour has already been demonstrated by those who bought subsidised solar panels and are paid subsidised rates by those in society who cannot afford it.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 02:39

...Andy, selective reading will support whatever you want it to. Works both ways. Looking at the bigger picture usually clarifies where the truth is.

Your last paragraph, specifically, your last sentence invites attention. Does your analogy mean that you think that everyone who took up the government's solar panel rebate offer did so to intentionally cause suffering to those people who couldn't afford to? I hope I'm wrong, because that's pretty twisted mate.

Ever considered that plenty of those "haves" as you've labeled them pay more income tax in a year than many of the "have nots" even earn. It's all relative. Here's a link that might help you put that into better perspective if you play with the slide bar in it: http://www.wheredomytaxesgo.com.au/

If you're going to get up anyone over solar rebates, get up those that made the offer, not those who took it up.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 07:03

Originally Posted By: Jax
Your last paragraph, specifically, your last sentence invites attention. Does your analogy mean that you think that everyone who took up the government's solar panel rebate offer did so to intentionally cause suffering to those people who couldn't afford to? I hope I'm wrong, because that's pretty twisted mate.

Ever considered that plenty of those "haves" as you've labeled them pay more income tax in a year than many of the "have nots" even earn.

Originally Posted By: Jax
Andy, selective reading will support whatever you want it to. Works both ways. Looking at the bigger picture usually clarifies where the truth is.


Couldn't agree with you more, which is why I introduced the analogy, which is why I wanted to highlight the fact that Monsanto does offer an alternative to landholders that happen to find plants with their genetic material on their land. Bashing the absolute crap out of one company is extremely narrow minded, particularly when their are other BIGGER companies out there engaged in similar sorts of activities. The activism that we've seen on this thread has excluded other viewpoints, has really attempted to malign some posters in the name of shaming GM as completely evil. What really needs to happen is a definition of GM needs to be hammered out before further discussion happens. I think many people would be surprised at how all encompassing GM is and how without it, people's lives would definitely be worse off.


As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intention.

I believe that when the voters elected the party who brought in these schemes, the now apparent consequences were unforeseen and therefore unintended. I doubt anybody in this country really wants to inflict suffering on another group deliberately. When I wrote that analogy I was thinking more along the lines of those on the old age pension and disability schemes. I doubt there is a good case that exists that says they should put money back into the pockets of those who were paying around $1000 per quarter in electricity?
Posted by: Chrissy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 09:21

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U


I've also read that Monsanto does offer a service, at no cost to the landholder, where they will come in and remove Roundup resistant plants that a farmer may find and may not wish to have.


Yeah right... Monsanto dont do anything for free.. And they also dont give a stuff about how their company negatively affects the world...
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 09:52

In the 1980s the biggest protests were against free trade agreements. Now we are paying the price for not taking heed.
Posted by: Loopy Radar

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 09:54

Lawmakers in Vermont are looking to regulate food labels so customers can know which products are made from genetically modified crops, but agricultural giants Monsanto say they will sue if the state follows through.

If the bill in question, H-722 (the “VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) passes the state Senate and House, manufacturers will be required to label products that are created either partially or in full from a genetically modified organism, or GMO. Such man-made crops have become a trademark of the billion-dollar Monsanto corporation, and in the past the company has gone to great lengths to keep themselves the number-one name in American agriculture, even if those profits are made possible from playing God.

Monsanto is going mad over the proposal, however, which would also make them unable to label their productions as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown” or “all natural,” if, in fact, they are not. For the corporation, it would seem that moving products and making money is much more of a worthwhile venture than telling its customers what exactly they are consuming.

With Vermont legislators now standing in the way of what could mean even more money for Monsanto, the company says they will sue the state if H-722 is approved. Now in fear of a lawsuit in the future, lawmakers in Vermont have put a hold on any future voting regarding the bill. If history is any indication, Monsanto is more than likely to have their way and win yet another battle.

Monsanto is no stranger to the American legal system and have forced competing farm after farm to be shut down or bought out by bringing lawsuits against the little guy throughout their history. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto’s legal team tried to file nearly 150 lawsuits against independent farmers, often for allegations that their patented GMO-seeds had somehow managed to be carried onto unlicensed farms. Often those farms have been unable to fight against Monsanto’s mega-lawyers and have been forced to fold in response. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association tried taking Monsanto to court earlier this year to keep them from following similar suits, but a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan shut down their plea. The group has since filed an appeal.

Regardless of if the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association’s appeal will be granted, Monsanto is making waves in Vermont where they hope to continue creating GMO products and pushing them to consumers without warning. Between state lawmakers putting their vote on hold and past precedents, Monsanto looks more than likely to win their latest battle, though. Back in 1994, Vermont tried to keep dairy corporations from marketing milk made from cows injected with the Bovine Growth Hormone, citing incidents where the rBGH had been tied to cases of cancer. Monsanto was victorious in that battle and numerous others in the years since.

Article: RT

http://princevega.com/monsanto-threatens-sue-entire-state-vermont-label-gmo-products/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 10:00

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
So when you refer to GM, you are thereby deliberately implying that majority of grain in the human food supply chain is of the Roundup resistant variety? This is the distinct impression you give me given you are spending an awful lot of time linking to 'research' linking cancer with grains that are likely to be GM Roundup resistant.

Now I'd be interested in seeing whether you'd be able to pinpoint some specific and most importantly, independent, sources that would be able to contradict something which I've read that states that nearly all Roundup resistant varieties of grains have poor palatability and are therefore used in the biofuel and oil industry.

I've also read that Monsanto does offer a service, at no cost to the landholder, where they will come in and remove Roundup resistant plants that a farmer may find and may not wish to have.

So from what I can see, the arguments that you've put forth seem to prey on people's lack of knowledge in these areas. Now what really concerns me is that the popularising of these types of ideas could ultimately cause a lot more distress and hardship to a vast number of people. We've already seen a callous disregard for people that are suffering right now because of supposed problems that are conjured up by all manner of theories in relation to Golden Rice. From what I can tell, you're happy to drive a wedge between society's haves and have nots, I'd bet my last dollar though, that you're happy to see that wedge there providing your on the side not suffering from an empty belly or malnutrition. This type of behaviour has already been demonstrated by those who bought subsidised solar panels and are paid subsidised rates by those in society who cannot afford it.


How is that not?
Corn is a Major staple food and is found in the majority of the processed foods in the states (and elsewhere) so as far as my maths tells me 70% of the US corn Crops are from GM Roundup ready sources and another 16 percent are from GM stock also so that leaves only 14% of a nations staple crop from non GM sources so in my eyes that is classed as the majority.

If you are interested in finding independent sources of research then do your own research as there is plenty out there.

That is correct Jax, those have of society are deluded, they think they they have everything that they need but they are wrong, if material wealth and technology is all that they need then it just goes to show you how society is today.

the people who see that have nots as "poor" for a reason, so the western world can make money from their suffering.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 10:03

Originally Posted By: Baralga
Originally Posted By: Andy Double U


I've also read that Monsanto does offer a service, at no cost to the landholder, where they will come in and remove Roundup resistant plants that a farmer may find and may not wish to have.


Yeah right... Monsanto dont do anything for free.. And they also dont give a stuff about how their company negatively affects the world...


That is correct, the only reason that they would off a "free" service is so they can remove the plant and then patent it as a new strain so they can make more money down the track.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/04/2013 12:33

The Monsanto protection act...

Clearly, the section of the recently signed H.R. 933 budget bill that has become known as the "Monsanto Protection Act" by its opponents, due to its favorable impact on companies like Monsanto (MON) and DuPont (DD) and the multibillion dollar genetically modified foods industry, has aroused serious passions.

But it takes a special kind of outrage for an obscure rider in a government spending bill to cross over from the topic of wonky lunchroom discussions to the wide world of social media.

That’s exactly what has happenedthis time around. A petition to stop the act before the vote even took place collected more than 250,000 names, according to Food Democracy Now, the pro-sustainability food group that was behind the petition as well as much of the uproar on social media since.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) even issued a statement last week expressing her displeasure with the rider. "Senator Mikulski understands the anger over this provision. She didn’t put the language in the bill and doesn’t support it either," it reads in part. A Tea Party blogger also has come out in opposition.

But why has the issue of genetically modified foods gone mainstream this time around? After all, this isn't the first time that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have come up for a vote in Washington, and the very rider at the heart of this debate was included in a farm bill that was defeated in 2012.

A lot of it has to do with timing, explains Mira Calton, a licensed certified nutritionist and co-author of "Rich Food, Poor Food." That, and the fact that consumers are becoming more interested in what they’re eating.

"Right now is really just such a hot time for people to get educated on what's in their food, and the Internet has given us the ability to do this very easily," she says. "What may have flown under the radar before, now you can just look up online -- 'What is the Monsanto Protection Act?'".


We reached out to Monsanto for a comment on all this but had not heard back from them as of press time.

Here are the concerns at the center of the debate.

1. . The government is turning a blind eye. . According to the Austin Chronicle, the act "essentially deregulates GMOs by allowing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to override judicial rulings and grant temporary permits for conventional farmers to plant and grow genetically modified crops while pending review."

2.. Monsanto itself may have written the provision. . Although it is still unclear who exactly in Congress added the rider into the spending bill, Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt told Politicorecently that he worked with executives at Monsanto on the language. "What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it," Blunt told Politico. "But it is only a one year protection in that bill."

Government working with big business on regulatory language? Fact is, this is what lobbyists do for a living. But the publicity surrounding this issue has shone new light on this long-established fact of Washington life and brought new questions about the reality of the political process.

3.. It's all about money.. The biotech industry as a whole -- which encompasses pharmaceuticals, biofuels and food sciences -- is massive and global in scale, accounting for $83 billion in revenue in 2012, according to the Ernst & Young Global Biotechnology Report 2012.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-excha...-170146036.html


The 5 Horrible Facts
1.) “The ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future.” (Studies have revealed severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods.)
2.) “The provision’s language was written in collusion with Monsanto… the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning.”
3.) “Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ existed within the bill they were voting on.” HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown.
“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the the Center for Food Safety said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”
4.) “On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation fixated on gay marriage as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California’s Proposition 8.” (250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision.)
5.) The precedent, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer protections and safety. It suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.)
Opponents of the provision say it was jammed through Congress without a proper hearing in relevant committees. I wonder why that would be….
Hidden Provision (deep into a homeland security section)
Carl Gibson explains the anatomy of this secret slip. “Thanks to Monsanto’s aggressive lobbying, Congress hid a provision deep into a homeland security section of their recently passed budget, by way of a long-winded paragraph loaded with indecipherable legalese.” The legalese, however, has a purpose. It allows the agribusiness giant to plant genetically-modified (GM) crops without judicial review, judicial review aimed at determining whether or not their crops are unsafe. “Essentially, Monsanto bought enough influence to bypass the system of checks and balances.”
“Although Obama said in 2007 that he would “immediately” work to label GM foods if elected, Obama in 2012 appointed a Monsanto executive as his administration’s food safety czar.” No wonder the bill slipped in, paving the way for mutant food to hit the grocery store shelves without any obstacles.
This is certainly a huge disappointment, and a concern for all of us who have read about GMOs being linked to organ damage (in 13 scientific studies), toxins from GM crops being found in humans’ blood, and GMOs being linked to livestock reproduction problems (such as animal miscarriages).

Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/04/02/five-ap...AOfAqDVrOCI5.99

http://planetsave.com/2013/04/02/five-ap...protection-act/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/04/2013 10:04


Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
Now I'd be interested in seeing whether you'd be able to pinpoint some specific and most importantly, independent, sources that would be able to contradict something which I've read that states that nearly all Roundup resistant varieties of grains have poor palatability and are therefore used in the biofuel and oil industry.




Quote:
I spent the last 17 years as an Ag and enviromental scientist with a state Dept of Ag. I just wanted to qualify what I'm about to say, because there is and will continue to be much controversy about this issue. Round-up Ready corn is approved for human consumtion in the US to the best of my knowledge and probably 75% of all field corn planted the last several years in this country is transgenic. Truth is you are probably already eating it. I will not step into the "great debate", but I will tell you that some countries will not allow its importation for any purpose.

Approximately 70 percent of processed foods sold in grocery stores contain ingredients from biotech crops. (Source: Council for Biotechnology Information, 2011)



When President Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act, many citizens were outraged by this blatant violation of the Constitution. By approving this act, Obama has allowed Monsanto to exist above the law,since genetically modified seeds are now protected from any litigation involving health risks. That is strange, right? If you were confident in your product, why would you be concerned about lawsuits involving health risks? You may wonder how this applies to you, considering you don’t buy Monsanto-Oh’s for breakfast, but essentially, you are. Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn, soy, wheat and beet crops have infiltrated our entire food system, and you could be eating their products every day and not even realizing it.

Many people, including children, have developed deadly allergies to peanuts and other food products. Imagine the trauma for a child who has to deal with their mortality every time they eat — how terrifying for the affected kids and their parents. According to PBS.org, “Some critics of GM foods feel that the possibility exists that those genetically modified food crops may unintentionally introduce a new allergen — for example, a fish gene can be put into a plant…. ” Although I am fan of sushi, I don’t really think it is necessary to cross-breed it with my strawberries — especially considering the potential adverse reaction. PBS then goes on to explain, “Another potential hazard is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistant genes found in many GM foodstuffs… in principle, it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.”



Beyond frightening and unforeseen potential consequences to human health, there are some serious ecological effects we can’t afford to ignore. Traditionally, farmers around the world have saved seeds in order to cultivate a variety of strands to help maintain bio-diversity, particularly heirloom varieties, some of which may have been developed hundreds of years ago or more. Monsanto requires farmers to sign contracts on their seed that cannot legally be used the next season, and therefore the farmers have to purchase new seed annually. These GMO seeds are used only in monocrop farming type operations, which are not environmentally friendly or sustainable for their own reasons even without the GMOs, pesticides, and petrochemical fertilizer. So when you drive cross-country, one-third of the time you will be staring at corn and soy fields making you wish the Children of the Corn will emerge and eat your eyeballs directly out of your sockets. Massive fields with one crop, created from one seed, become very susceptible to pests — hence the creation of pesticides. And because there is no crop-rotation to replenish fields, the pesticides often continue to build up over time.
http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2013/04/06/what-every-parent-should-know-about-monsanto/
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/04/2013 17:04

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
How is that not?
Corn is a Major staple food and is found in the majority of the processed foods in the states (and elsewhere) so as far as my maths tells me 70% of the US corn Crops are from GM Roundup ready sources and another 16 percent are from GM stock also so that leaves only 14% of a nations staple crop from non GM sources so in my eyes that is classed as the majority.


Ah yes, but when you consider the following breakdown:

Greater than 46% (>33% used domestically, 13% exported) of the corn crop is used for live stock feed

40% goes into ethanol production which leaves less than 14% going into food and beverage production.

Now given the public's skepticism of GM and the fact that companies need to make money, company directors took steps to aim toward the livestock and biofuel market (let's face it, greenies aren't that worried about their cars catching cancer), I'd say the fact that you and I both have a figure of 14% to play with is more than just mere coincidence. One could say via a process of deduction that the shear bulk of the corn that people eat is derived from largely GM free sources. As Jax so eloquently pointed out, sometimes it pays to read a wider variety of sources. grin

In any case, in order to reduce the chances of further hyperventilation at the 'ZOMG! the sky is falling because someone planted a GM seed that someone may or may not eat' I'd suggest you read this AU/NZ Safety Assessment of GM Foods PDF.

Some interesting quotes:

Originally Posted By: Allergies
In assessing the safety of a GM food, FSANZ checks to ensure that the levels of naturally occurring
allergens in GM foods have not significantly increased above the natural range in the conventional food. FSANZ also checks to ensure that the new proteins in GM foods are not likely to be allergenic. It does this by asking the following questions:
• Do the new proteins come from living organisms that contain significant allergens?
• Is the sequence of amino acids (the building blocks that make up proteins) in the new proteins
similar to that of any known allergens?
• Do the new proteins have any other physical or biochemical characteristics typical of allergens?
If the answer to one or more of these questions is ‘yes’, then further information is required for FSANZ to work out whether or not the new protein is allergenic.
If FSANZ had scientific evidence that a new protein in a GM food was allergenic, it is unlikely that the food containing that protein would be given approval for sale in Australia or New Zealand, even with appropriate labelling. This is because it would not be appropriate to increase the community’s exposure to allergenic proteins in the food supply.


Originally Posted By: Toxins
All substances — both natural and human-made — are toxic at some dose. However, substances classed as toxins are those that can be harmful to health at typical levels of exposure. A number of different toxins are found naturally in various foods, but the vast majority of these are present at concentrations well below the level that would harm the consumer.
Examples of toxic substances found in foods include:
• glycoalkaloids found in green potatoes
• fungal toxins that sometimes contaminate food
• glucosinolates in cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, brussels sprouts and canola
See Section 11.3 for more detail about the process of assessing the allergenicity of GM foods.
7.3
18 Food Standards Australia New Zealand
An Overview
• erucic acid in canola
• psoralens in celery
• cyanogenic glycosides in bitter almonds
• substances in poisonous species of fish and mushrooms.
Thus, toxic substances are naturally present in many conventional foods that are subsequently genetically modified. For example, both GM and conventional varieties of canola naturally contain erucic acid, and there is a limit on the amount of erucic acid that is allowed in foods derived from canola, such as canola oil. These limits apply whether the food is derived from conventional or GM canola.
Unless any toxins present in a conventional food are specifically removed, they will remain in the GM version of the food. FSANZ compares the levels of naturally occurring toxins in the conventional food with those in the GM food. If a safety assessment found that levels of naturally occurring toxins were higher in a GM food, FSANZ would need to assess how much of the food is normally eaten (that is, the dietary intake), to ensure that the levels of toxins consumed would not be harmful to health.


Originally Posted By: Antibiotic Resistance
There has been concern in the community about the consequences to human health and safety if
genes present in GM foods were able to transfer to cells in the human digestive tract. Sometimes, genes that give bacteria resistance to a particular antibiotic have been used in the genetic modification process. A particular concern is the possibility that the genes conferring antibiotic resistance could transfer to disease-causing bacteria in the human digestive tract. If this were to happen, the concern is that it could result in infections that are resistant to treatment with antibiotics.
However, the antibiotic resistance genes currently present in GM foods code for resistance to antibiotics that are not widely used in human medicine, because resistance to them is already widespread.


Originally Posted By: Herbicides
All foods sold in Australia and New Zealand must comply with relevant maximum residue limits,
whether the foods have been genetically modified or not. This means that foods cannot be sold if they contain levels of chemical residues that are above the limit that has been set for that substance.
Therefore, even if herbicide or pesticide uses change because crops have been modified to tolerate these chemicals, food sold in Australia and New Zealand will not contain unsafe levels of residues. In some cases, the level of herbicide and pesticide used on GM crops may actually be reduced.


Originally Posted By: Will GM food ever be safe?
The long-term safety of foods relies on an understanding of the nature and composition of the food, together with a history of safe use for that food or a related food. In this respect, assuring the safety of GM food is no different from assuring the safety of more traditional foods. It is important to remember that foods carry both benefits in the form of nutrients and, in some cases, risks in the form of antinutrients, toxins or allergens. A detailed nderstanding of the composition of a food can provide a better understanding of the nature and extent of any risks and thus a strong assurance of safety.

...

In recent times, we have begun to understand more about the nature and composition of our food and to further investigate the important relationships between our diet and our health. Over the longterm,a balanced diet of nutritious foods is probably more important than the level of intake of any one food.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 08/04/2013 17:39

I guess you have never been to Emerald then and seen all the canola from horizon to horizon or the sunflower crops, millet etc. Maybe a quick trip to South west WA or SA or Vic or NSW to see the size of the wheat crops might make you shudder too. If we didn't grow them in that manner then they wouldn't be economically viable.

FSANZ - Food Standards Australia New Zealand - Try sending them your posts and concerns including your links and other information and see what happens.

They love hearing from people about food concerns, no really they do. An organisation I am involved in away from WZ does so on a semi regular basis about the amounts of salt in foods and claims of what is and isn't low salt. They answer promptly, carry out scientific testing and provide the results to you.

What should I do if I suspect a problem?

Don’t eat the food product you are concerned about. Report the problem to the relevant local food enforcement contact and provide:
•your name, address and phone number
•the brand name, food product name and manufacturer
•the size and package type
•package codes and dates
•name and location of the store and the date you purchased it.

Remember to keep the original container or packaging and if relevant, the foreign object (e.g. metal washer that you found in the food).

Refrigerate any uneaten portion of the food.


Your in Queensland so:

Queensland Health – Public Health Units

The following website includes email, telephone and address details for Queensland Health Public Health Units:
Website: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/foodsafety/role/population_health.asp

Contact your closest Queensland Health Public Health Unit if your inquiry relates to:
•food composition and labelling issues
•Queensland food safety publications
•information on food legislation
•complaints about suspected food-borne illness, contamination of food and food recalls
•food safety programs in Queensland Government facilities.

Please note: All incidents of suspected intentional contamination of food are to be reported to Queensland Health via the 13 HEALTH (13 43 25 84) hotline. Please refer to further information at: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/susp_food_industry.pdf .


FANZ Contact details:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/ Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/scienceinfsanz/riskanalysis.cfm

So the ball is in your court, I have provide, again, all the contacts and information you need to have your claims investigated in Australia.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/04/2013 08:03

ah the intelligence of this debate
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/02/28/h...e/#.UWcy0KJmiSo
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/04/2013 09:20

Well FW you do have to admit they are keeping it simple and concentrating on "below the waist" issues.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/04/2013 20:41

Originally Posted By: SBT
I guess you have never been to Emerald then and seen all the canola from horizon to horizon or the sunflower crops, millet etc. Maybe a quick trip to South west WA or SA or Vic or NSW to see the size of the wheat crops might make you shudder too. If we didn't grow them in that manner then they wouldn't be economically viable.

FSANZ - Food Standards Australia New Zealand - Try sending them your posts and concerns including your links and other information and see what happens.

They love hearing from people about food concerns, no really they do. An organisation I am involved in away from WZ does so on a semi regular basis about the amounts of salt in foods and claims of what is and isn't low salt. They answer promptly, carry out scientific testing and provide the results to you.

What should I do if I suspect a problem?

Don’t eat the food product you are concerned about. Report the problem to the relevant local food enforcement contact and provide:
•your name, address and phone number
•the brand name, food product name and manufacturer
•the size and package type
•package codes and dates
•name and location of the store and the date you purchased it.

Remember to keep the original container or packaging and if relevant, the foreign object (e.g. metal washer that you found in the food).

Refrigerate any uneaten portion of the food.


Your in Queensland so:

Queensland Health – Public Health Units

The following website includes email, telephone and address details for Queensland Health Public Health Units:
Website: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/foodsafety/role/population_health.asp

Contact your closest Queensland Health Public Health Unit if your inquiry relates to:
•food composition and labelling issues
•Queensland food safety publications
•information on food legislation
•complaints about suspected food-borne illness, contamination of food and food recalls
•food safety programs in Queensland Government facilities.

Please note: All incidents of suspected intentional contamination of food are to be reported to Queensland Health via the 13 HEALTH (13 43 25 84) hotline. Please refer to further information at: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/ehu/susp_food_industry.pdf .


FANZ Contact details:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/ Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/scienceinfsanz/riskanalysis.cfm

So the ball is in your court, I have provide, again, all the contacts and information you need to have your claims investigated in Australia.


As i have said in the past it all comes down to money and the Government will ALWAYS put the e-con-o-mee and money before people.
Who is the biggest employer in australia? the sickness industry.....
Like i have said many a time before look at smoking, everyone knows how bad it is for you, how much damage it does, how many lives it ruins, but do you think the government will ban it completely? no! why not? because they would loose too much money on tobacco excise..... (so money comes before people...)

Look at some of the substances that have been banned in different countries for years and some even decades yet they are still freely available in Australia.

Look at antioxident 320 this additive is BANNED in ANY food that is targeted directly for children, but you gou into any supermarket and have a look at the back of some items that are specifically aimed at children and you will find 320 in them.

So don't think the government will actually look out for you.
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/04/2013 11:43

OK so according to you we are:
Destroying the planet with CO2, coal and pollution.
Killing 100,000's by coal fired power station pollution.
Nuclear power is the root of all evil.
Capitalism and a select elite pull all the strings.
Wind turbines are the answer to base load power.
The government is conning us into buying harmful chemicals hidden in foods that cause huge health problems.
That by allowing these chemicals it make huge profits for selected companies both chemical and in the health industry.
That the very departments set up to monitor these chemicals in our foods are just a cover to allow anyone to put anything into foods so that they can make a profit from.
Monsanto is the most evil company on the planet.
Single crop farms cause environmental damage.
That Feeding the worlds starving populations with GM foods equates to a morally corrupt enterprise designed only to make huge profits for some companies.
The government is controlling the population by making us sick by forcing us to drink fluoride.
Organic is safe and natural foods cure cancer and prevent all diseases.
Capitalism is evil and causes all manner of social ills while a change to communism will cure every problem.

And after all that is said and done it is all a huge conspiracy to hide the truth from us, right?







Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/04/2013 11:55

Bit over the top and personally I am not a fan of communism but other than that reckon you've nailed it there SBT. Agree with your comments 100%. Good to see you've seen the light mate, took a while but glad that we persevered smile
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/04/2013 13:57

OK so according to you we are:
Destroying the planet with CO2, coal and pollution. Yes you are correct
Killing 100,000's by coal fired power station pollution. Yes you are correct
Nuclear power is the root of all evil.Yes you are correct
Capitalism and a select elite pull all the strings. You think otherwise? Who starts all the wars? the USA.
Wind turbines are the answer to base load power. NOt currently, but when more projects are up and running.
The government is conning us into buying harmful chemicals hidden in foods that cause huge health problems.The manufacturers are the ones responsible for that
That by allowing these chemicals it make huge profits for selected companies both chemical and in the health industry. Yes you are correct
That the very departments set up to monitor these chemicals in our foods are just a cover to allow anyone to put anything into foods so that they can make a profit from. Pretty much the crux of it,other countries ban particular substances becasue of health concerns yet Australia embraces them..
Monsanto is the most evil company on the planet. Yess!! you have seen the light! and are 100% correct
Single crop farms cause environmental damage. Yes you are correct
That Feeding the worlds starving populations with GM foods equates to a morally corrupt enterprise designed only to make huge profits for some companies. Yes you are correct
The government is controlling the population by making us sick by forcing us to drink fluoride. Yes you are correct, i have lived on flouride free tank water for over 15 yeras and have no cavites because of it, and no one else in my family has any fillings or cavities
Organic is safe and natural foods cure cancer and prevent all diseases.Not quite,but they go along way to preventing diseases.
Capitalism is evil and causes all manner of social ills while a change to communism will cure every problem.first part...

And after all that is said and done it is all a huge conspiracy to hide the truth from us, right?No, that's where you are wrong it is not hidden from you and you can see it as cleary as the nose on your face by what you have written above, it just comes down to you don't want to believe it.Maybe you should do yourself a facvor for a change and stop reading all of these sceptic websites and do some real researh into chemicals and what they are doing the the population, like you have with salt.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/04/2013 14:01

YS, that makes me feel a little bad after seeing my one line response. Great confirmations / corrections - like you say the answers are out there...just a case of taking off those blinkers / choosing to see.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/04/2013 14:40

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
YS, that makes me feel a little bad after seeing my one line response. Great confirmations / corrections - like you say the answers are out there...just a case of taking off those blinkers / choosing to see.


I always look forward to and respect your replies, you have a good way of articulating your point.

Here is another intersting article.

New article on health hazards of genetically modified foods

A new peer-reviewed article has been published on the health hazards of genetically modified foods in Vital Link, the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (www.cand.ca). The article was written by Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source.

The article:
*leads with the Seralini et al (2012) study, which remains the most thorough and detailed study ever to be carried out on a GM food
*reviews additional evidence from animal feeding studies with GM foods
*supports the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s (AAEM) conclusion that GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption but that animal studies offer “ample evidence of probable harm”
*notes that some people in the US have reported improvements in their health and the disappearance of sometimes serious symptoms just by eliminating GMOs from their diets
*recommends choosing organic and Non-GMO Project Verified foods, and foods derived from crops that are not subject to genetic modification.

http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php...-modified-foods
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/04/2013 08:24

Editor's Plate: The Dangers of the Dangers of GMOs

We’ve written before about genetically engineered ingredients (most often referred to as GMOS, for genetically modified organisms), but we’ve never taken so comprehensive a look at the issue as we do in the Wellness Foods section of this website. I strongly urge you to take a look. And then to think hard about it.

Our story does a great job of summarizing credible research on the subject by both sides. And I want to say up front that we try not to take sides on this issue. While we count many Fortune 500 (or, quoting our own list, Top 100) companies among our readers, we probably have just as many smaller companies and ones committed to organics and all-natural products. Ones searching for a niche or trying to make a mark alongside the big guys. We love both groups.

So let me completely turn over the next few paragraphs to GMO Inside, probably the leading organization against GMOs. On its website, on the FAQ page, the group answers the question: “Why should we be concerned about GMOs?”

Human Health Risks: More and more studies point to the idea that there’s grave cause for concern about the health effects of consuming GMOs and the chemicals they are sprayed with, including food allergies, irritable bowels, organ damage, cancer.
Environmental Risks: Seventy-two percent of U.S. GMO crops are engineered to tolerate a certain type of herbicide. But the weeds that these herbicides used to kill are coming back bigger and stronger, creating herbicide-resistant “superweeds” that require greater quantities of more toxic pesticides to eradicate.
The Risk to Farmers in Developing Countries: Every 30 minutes, a farmer commits suicide in India due to meet rising debts, a phenomenon that has been steadily rising since the 1970s. While the causes behind the farmers’ crushing debt and resultant suicides are complex — ranging from unfair government floor prices for cotton to international trade agreements skewed in favor of other countries — GM seeds do appear to play a role.
The Risk to Organic Farmers: Even when a farmer isn’t growing GM crops, contamination can easily occur—through seed mixing or pollen drift from neighboring GM fields. While this contamination is troubling for those of us who wish to avoid GMOs, it can be an economic disaster for organic and family farmers.

That’s it. Just four points. And four of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. The boldfaced intros are compelling, but the supporting arguments just don’t hold water.
Nowhere do I see the “more and more studies” alluded to in bullet point one (which introduces the dangers of pesticides and other chemicals, not the dangers of the GMOs themselves). Are bigger weeds the biggest environmental risk they can come up with? Farmers in India committing suicide? How is that relevant? But I'll give them at least some points for the last one, the contamination of organic farms.
I’m sorry. With the superficial knowledge I had going into this subject, and knowing some of the leaders personally, I was hoping to be persuaded to at least abstain from taking sides. But if those are GMO Inside’s best shots, they leave me cold.
I’m bothered by fanatics on any issue. I don’t know where some companies’ fervor ends and market posturing begins. And with only one company (until now) certifying products as GMO-free, I wonder about the profit motive in pushing for labels.
Clearly, however, GMOs are one of those emotional issues. I witnessed that early in March at Natural Products Expo West. For a March 7 press conference and meeting, backers of the various GMO labeling initiatives booked a pretty big room, which legally held 178. I was one of 50 or so people huddled in the lobby. Several more people came, gave up and left during the hourlong event.
It was part press conference and part revival meeting. The emotions in that cramped room ran high.
At the end, I buttonholed an acquaintance from a small but very high-end food company. “I didn’t know you guys were anti-GMO,” I said. “We’re not…not really,” she said. “We’re getting pressured into it from Whole Foods and some other customers. We say we’re organic and natural, but they want non-GMO certification. The cost of the testing, the certification and the repackaging will price us out of the category. I don’t know what to do.”
My advice to her: Make a decision. Take a stand, and proudly stick by it. No one says you have to label “contains GMOs” on your packaging. Not yet, anyway. You just won’t be able to claim “GMO free.” You’ll lose the consumers who care about such certification but retain — within your current price point — the ones that don’t care. Unfortunately, she may lose Whole Foods as a retailer.
The genetically engineered salmon is a whole ’nother story. For some reason, that one scares me. Again, my research on the subject is pretty shallow.
GMO-free labeling is great. I’ll both defend it and be as oblivious to it as I am to gluten-free or peanut-free. If I cared, I’d welcome the label. I don’t, but I defend the rights of those who do care about such labels.
Just don’t force a warning label onto foods that do contain GMOs

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2013/april-fusaro-editors-plate.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/04/2013 16:43

Study reveals GMO corn to be highly toxic

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional corn, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

Link
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 17/04/2013 16:59

Quote:
Dow and Monsanto have now officially made the deal to move forward with the infamous 'Agent Orange Corn' you have heard of. This new corn will be made to be resistant to not only RoundUp but also 2,4-D, which is half of what Agent Orange was comprised of (the other half was 2,4,5-T). According to Beyond Pesticides, 2,4-D has been linked to "non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms."


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/04/2013 08:21

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
Interesting... So Yasified, would you be able to enlighten me and others as to exactly how much Roundup Ready/GMO grain finds its way into the human food supply chain directly? Say for instance, what percentage of Corn Flakes sold world wide is flattened GMO corn?


Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/04/2013 11:26

An interesting article on World hungers, now wasn't part of the premise to introduce GM foods is that it would alleviate world hunger? Food security? again more lies on the part of the big biotech companies and others that push their barrows.




Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?

The world produces enough food to feed everyone.
World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

Progress in reducing the number of hungry people

The target set at the 1996 World Food Summit was to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015 from their number in 1990-92. (FAO uses three year averages in its calculation of undernourished people.)The (estimated) number of undernourished people in developing countries was 824 million in 1990-92. In 2010, the number had climbed to 925 million people. The WFS goal is a global goal adopted by the nations of the world; the present outcome indicates how marginal the efforts were in face of the real need.

So, overall, the world is not making progress toward the world food summit goal, although there has been progress in Asia, and in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Full story.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/04/2013 22:10

A recently released report from Food and Drug Administration found that of all the raw ground turkey tested, 81% was contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Also, according to the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, or NARMS, Retail Meat Annual Report, ground turkey wasn't the only problem. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria were found in some 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef and 39% of chicken.

In the meat NARMS tested, scientists found significant amounts of salmonella and Campylobacter -- bacteria that cause millions of cases of food poisoning a year.

Consumers demanding drug-free meat How to buy cheaper, better beef FDA to review antibiotic use in animals Food fraud on the rise
Of the chicken tested, 53% was tainted with an antibiotic-resistant form of E.coli, the report said.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/ckogdwq
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 20/04/2013 08:57

When/where will it end? once Monsanto have Genetically modified everything on the planet?

Tell USDA to Reject GE Eucalyptus

Tree biotechnology companies are requesting an unprecedented USDA approval: multiple varieties of genetically engineered (GE) eucalyptus trees to be grown in seven southeastern states, and possibly the Pacific Northwest. If approved, this will be the first GE forest tree to be commercially grown in the U.S. Paper and biofuel companies are planning on growing these trees on intensively managed monoculture tree plantations.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/1881/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=10521
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/04/2013 13:00


January 06, 2009 at 04:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0) ShareThisShareThis


Fact Check: Rice Crop Yield Improves With Global Warming, Higher CO2 Levels - Opposite of Alarmist Predictions

(1) http://www.c3headlines.com/

The CAGW climate change alarmists and "experts" fill the mainstream media with frightening tales of looming disasters, including crop failures that will lead to mass starvation - but when compared to global warming reality and actual world rice production and yield, the research and empirical evidence show output results are enhanced, not harmed

(click on images to enlarge, data source, rice image source)

Global warming CO2 and rice crop World rice production co2 levels global warming climate change alarmists 2012

The green-religion fundamentalists have a long history of making crop failure and mass starvation predictions. A 2010 study by a group of academia warming alarmists added to the collection of doom prognostications of coming crop failures, due to anthropogenic warming from human CO2 emissions.

As the above chart on the right indicates however, despite the modest global warming since the 1970's, and the massive increase of human CO2 levels, world rice production increased and continues to do so. Why?

Well, certainly better agriculture methods and technology made fools of the green 'Earth Day' fanatics. In addition, the latest research actually documents with irrefutable evidence that rice crop yield benefits from both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

Roy et al..."the five researchers from the Central Rice Research Institute of India conducted a three-year open-top-chamber field study to observe the effects of elevated as opposed to ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration (550 vs. 390 ppm), as well as elevated temperature (T, 2°C above ambient temperature), on dry matter production, carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) concentrations in plant parts, and their allocation in a tropical rice cultivar...Results of the experiment revealed the following responses in the elevated CO2/elevated temperature treatment:
(1) Dry matter accumulation in the aboveground portion of the rice plants was enhanced by 18.1% at maturity.
(2) Root biomass, leaf area index and net carbon assimilation rates also increased significantly.
(3) Grain yield was significantly higher (19.6%) in the CO2-enriched treatment.
(4) The net carbon yield increased by 24.2%.
(5) Nitrogen allocation increased significantly in leaf (13%), stem (14%) and panicle (17%) at maturity.
[K.S. Roy, P. Bhattacharyy, S. Neogi, K.S. Rao, T.K. Adhya 2012: Field Crops Research]

Conclusions:

1. Global warming alarmists' predictions of world hunger and mass deaths should not be believed

2. Green agenda-driven foretelling of crop failure and starvation from higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures are obviously without much merit

3. Rice crop yield and production improvements will likely continue despite the doomsday predictions
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/04/2013 16:02

Originally Posted By: SBT
Conclusions:

1. Global warming alarmists' predictions of world hunger and mass deaths should not be believed


Now hang on... wasn't it the GM brigade that started that? after all that was their Mantra why we so desperately needed genetically modified foods...to feed the starving masses! and food security..

Bet they weren't using GM crops there.... grin grin grin
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/04/2013 17:58

If you contact the original author I feel sure they will provide you with whatever additional information you need and it would surprise me not to see some GM crops involved in that study. Just click on the link above and it will send you directly to them.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 23/04/2013 16:07

The other side to Chemical fertilizers (pity it wasn't the big M smirk )


Frantic search ongoing after deadly Texas blast

http://news.yahoo.com/frantic-search-ongoing-deadly-texas-blast-135733543.html

Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 23/04/2013 16:36

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
The other side to Chemical fertilizers (pity it wasn't the big M smirk )


Frantic search ongoing after deadly Texas blast

http://news.yahoo.com/frantic-search-ongoing-deadly-texas-blast-135733543.html



And it's when things are said like those above that you know that those who espouse the 'altruistic and morally superior' compassionate values are really nothing more than narcissistic individuals who will pursue any and all means to ram their own agendas down other people's throats.

YS, I can't believe you could write that (and don't try to write it off as some sort of joke or say that you didn't really mean it). To wish ill of your fellow man is disgusting and really just goes to show how highly you value yourself.

Originally Posted By: _Yasified_shak
I have lived life on both sides of the coin being the typical consumerist junkie buying all the useless tech crap that i didn’t really need, i spent the first 3 years of my kids life driving 700+ ks a week to and from work, spending 2 hours a day in traffic, working for 10-12 hours a day just to make a “living” and did it make me happy? no, it didn’t there was no quality of life and at the end of the week there was no money left....

Basically i would get up in the morning and my kids would be asleep.... when i came home at night they were asleep.... i would work Saturdays so would again miss the whole day of being at home, then come Sunday i was knackered and did not want to do anything but my wife wanted to go out so we could do something as a family....
Finally we got to a point where enough was enough i was killing my self for nothing, my marriage was suffering, my kids did not have a dad so we sold the house that we were in for a tidy profit and bought a little shack in Qld outright and with the money we had left over invested that and we have never looked back or been happier, we don’t have to have the latest crap (we only buy something new if it breaks but more than likely will buy it second hand as it will last longer!) and our quality of life is so much better now.


Mate, your name isn't Dick Smith is it? You know him, dorky guy with glasses, made a motza out of consumerism in his electronics stores, has now seen the light and is warning everyone that they don't want what he has had/got. Funny thing is though, he still exists (as do you) based on money and sacrifices made at an earlier point in time and continue to subsidise your own lives based on the capitalist dollar today, shock horror, some of that money that you get back from your investments could even come from the very companies you say you despise so much on this forum.

Ughghg, you're so dazzled by your own brilliance that I know none of this will change your attitudes one iota, I just hope like hell though that others will see through your little charades for what you really are, a self centred individual pursuing a personal vendetta at the cost of your fellow people who are all trying to do the best for themselves and their families.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 23/04/2013 18:50

Does anyone have any decent links to legit info on the GM food industry ?

Half page banners saying Monsanto is evil is not what i want to see.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 23/04/2013 19:38

I work with GM improved turf grasses all the time... Walk on it everyday with bare feet and I have seen no Ill effects..... Bahahahahaha
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 10:36

Andy Double U you only chime in here when you "think" that you have something to "add" otherwise you are noticeable absent.

Are you ROM's son or something? or is this ROM's second account? because the way you BOTH word your post's is pretty much exactly the same.......

Point is "some" think that the chemical industry is perfect and can do no wrong.. here is your proof right here that it is dangerous, and is not the first time it has happened.

Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 11:22

lol YS. Nice to know my absence doesn't go unnoticed, thing is though, I'll only post when I think it is worth it. Spamming up a thread with one anti-gm beat up after another is tiresome and boring. No matter what anyone says, you'll never see the world in any other shade except for the one your rose coloured glasses allow you to see in.

Your continuation with your sadly deluded ramblings do you no favours, in fact one could even say that when people resort to macabre posts wishing ill on others based on a pure generalisation, they have nothing. That is you buddy, you have nothing.

Thanks for the ROM comparison! grin I know for a fact that whilst others in these forums may not strictly agree with what ROM says or how he says it, there is plenty of respect out there for him.

I'd like to say this though, despite our obvious ideological differences, I will never wish ill on you or your family for I respect the fact that in our society, diversity and difference of opinion is how things ultimately advance. Unfortunately, the impression that I have seen displayed from you is that the feeling is not mutual. It's pretty sad really.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 11:55

Yes, just like ROM.
His favorite pastime is to resort to personal attacks and belittling when he can't get his point across, or to hit the "ignore button" because he doesn't like what he reads, yes very mature.

The way it is portrayed here is that i am the only one who thinks the way i do, the reality is far from it.
There are plenty more on these forums that share the same views as i but they simply do not want to post for the constant verballing, personal attacks and the like when the other side can't come up with a plausible rebuttal, mods are constantly modifying his post with the direction of attack the topic not the person"

If people stuck to the actual topic then there would be a lot more people who would join into the conversation, and that is the last word i will say on the matter.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 11:55

What is it with you people and your personal attacks? I see it elsewhere with people attacking Cee Bee, I see it here with YS - and all because they are just as passionately convinced that they are as right as you others are who do the attacking. Sorry Andy W, but I find yours the most offensive posts on this page.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:09

Absolutely agree, cannot believe that you can post this: "Your continuation with your sadly deluded ramblings do you no favours, in fact one could even say that when people resort to macabre posts wishing ill on others based on a pure generalisation, they have nothing. That is you buddy, you have nothing." and then add that, oh, by the way, no illwill to you or your family.
Has been great to see YS, CB and others stand up the onslaught of reproduced WUWT posts on this forum and still keep going despite the ongoing personal attacks, but the venom in that one Andy W goes way over the top...you should apologise mate.
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:23

When you being kicked from behind Andy, it shows you are in front!
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:26

So violence and abuse shows you are winning. Nice way of judging where you stand in life then! Not.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:46

I find it interesting that the most aggressive posts are from those who feel they are being attacked when in actual fact, they are not!!! View the recent previous post's in all the threads!!! I say bring on GM foods.. As every living thing in nature is GM improved... Its called evolution!!!
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:49

Edited.
Posted by: Tom1234

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 12:55

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
YS, CB and others stand up the onslaught of reproduced WUWT posts on this forum and still keep going despite the ongoing personal attacks, but the venom in that one Andy W goes way over the top...you should apologise mate.


Many people in regular parts of the forum are actually afraid to mention climate change, that is how bad the attacks are on this forum.

I can't say i agree with YS on GM products, but im not going to go out of my way to personally abuse the guy. Like in other threads he cops abuse because he doesn't make forks out of tree branches which means surely he can't really care about AGW.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 13:22

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
I find it interesting that the most aggressive posts are from those who feel they are being attacked when in actual fact, they are not!!! View the recent previous post's in all the threads!!! I say bring on GM foods.. As every living thing in nature is GM improved... Its called evolution!!!

Evolution is a process of natural selection not a process created in a laboratory by inserting a gene from a fish into a strawberry....
Posted by: ROM

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 13:44

Just one of hundreds of such examples that have been recently uncovered and continue to be uncovered
And this one like most such examples are serious from humans point of view.

Swapping genes between species appears to be a standardised practice in Nature as researchers are discovering.
Antibiotics themselves have been derived from natural sources and have merely been purified by man so as to be effective on our species ills.

Human and soil bacteria swap antibiotic-resistance genes

Quote:
Soil bacteria and bacteria that cause human diseases have recently swapped at least seven antibiotic-resistance genes, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis report Aug. 31 in Science.
According to the scientists, more studies are needed to determine how widespread this sharing is and to what extent it makes disease-causing pathogens harder to control.
“It is commonplace for antibiotics to make their way into the environment,” says first author Kevin Forsberg, a graduate student. “Our results suggest that this may enhance drug resistance in soil bacteria in ways that could one day be shared with bacteria that cause human disease.”
Among the questions still to be answered: Did the genes pass from soil bacteria to human pathogens or vice versa? And are the genes just the tip of a vast reservoir of shared resistance? Or did some combination of luck and a new technique for studying genes across entire bacterial communities lead the scientists to discover the shared resistance genes?
Humans only mix their genes when they produce offspring, but bacteria regularly exchange genes throughout their lifecycles. This ability is an important contributor to the rapid pace of bacterial evolution. When a bacterial strain develops a new way to beat antibiotics, it can share the strategy not only with its descendants but also with other bacteria.
Earlier studies by other scientists have identified numerous resistance genes in strains of soil bacteria. However, unlike the seven genes described in this report, the earlier genes were dissimilar to their analogs in disease-causing bacteria, implying that they had crossed between the bacterial communities a long time ago.
Most of the antibiotics used to fight illness today originated from the soil. Bacteria use the antibiotics, in part, as weapons to compete with each other for resources and survival. Scientists have long acknowledged that gives environmental bacteria an evolutionary incentive to find ways to beat antibiotics.
“We wanted to try to get a broader sense of how often and extensively antibiotic-resistance genes are shared between environmental bacteria and pathogens,” says senior author Gautam Dantas, PhD, assistant professor of pathology and immunology.

The researchers isolated bacteria from soil samples taken at various U.S. locations. The bacteria’s DNA was broken into small chunks and randomly inserted into a strain of Escherichia coli that is vulnerable to antibiotics. Scientists treated the altered E. coli with multiple antibiotics.

“We knew that any E. coli that continued to grow after these treatments had picked up a gene from the soil bacteria that was helping it fight the antibiotics,” Forsberg says.
Scientists took the DNA from soil bacteria out of the surviving E. coli and prepared it for high-throughput sequencing. Dantas’ laboratory has developed techniques that make it possible to simultaneously sequence and analyze thousands of chunks of DNA from many diverse microorganisms. The DNA can be selected for a single function, such as antibiotic resistance.
When the scientists compared antibiotic-resistance genes found in the soil bacteria to disease-causing bacteria, they were surprised to find some genes were identical not only in the sections of the genes that code for proteins but also in nearby non-coding sections that help regulate the genes’ activities.
Since bacteria have such large population sizes and rapid reproduction times, their DNA normally accumulates mutations and other alterations much more quickly than the DNA of humans. The lack of changes in the resistance genes identified in the study suggests that the transfers of the genes must have occurred fairly recently, according to Dantas.
In some soil bacteria, the genes are present in clusters that make the bacteria resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics, including forms of penicillin, sulfonamide and tetracycline.

“I suspect the soil is not a teeming reservoir of resistance genes,” Dantas says. “But if factory farms or medical clinics continue to release antibiotics into the environment, it may enrich that reservoir, potentially making resistance genes more accessible to infectious bacteria


Agricultural research is now finding that herbicide resistant genes are naturally occurring in plants from very remote areas which have never seen herbicides.
As well plants grown from seeds that came from the pre 1940's before herbicides ever appeared on the farming scene are also being shown to have naturally occurring herbicide resistant genes.

And that was a surprise to everybody because it goes a long way towards explaining the ability to apparently develop resistance to some herbicide groups and modes of action very rapidly in some species of plants / weeds

Edit; Must get stuck into Nature sometime for daring to mess around with Genetically Modifying Organisms without any testing or permission from the greens around here.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 15:28

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

Evolution is a process of natural selection not a process created in a laboratory by inserting a gene from a fish into a strawberry....


Geez, you must surely be gnashing your teeth that is the abomination called the 'Golden Jellyfish'.

Excerpt:

... golden jellyfish don’t just enjoy basking in the sun—they need its light to survive. Solar rays nourish essential, algae-like organisms called zooxanthellae, which live symbiotically in the jellies’ tissues and provide their hosts with energy as a byproduct of their photosynthesis.

This algae has actually become a part of the jelly fish's DNA! Sure busts the myth that plant and animal genetic material will never cross paths in the gene pool.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 16:12

...Is someone consuming these jellyfish? Are they being farmed? Did this genetic crossing occur naturally or was it intentional? Is anything in your post even relevant to this thread??
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 16:17

So you are saying a fish and a strawberry could naturally exchange genetic material?
Where does most forms of Algae live in the water....
Do strawberries live in water?
Does a Glyphosate gene naturally occur in corn? soy? canola?
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 16:49

Jax, Yasified smile I don't think you guys can truly fathom just how deeply people have looked into genetics and how living organisms have come to be. You guys have placed artificial divisions between organisms and arbitrarily decided that certain things can't intermingle because one might be a plant, the other might be an animal, one might breathe air, the other might respire in water etc.

Check out Wonders of Life -- Episode 1

Of note:

But whilst the flow of energy can explain living things, it can't explain how life has endured for more than three billion years. So Brian meets an animal in the Borneo rainforest that holds the key to how life persists - the orangutan. Ninety seven per cent of our DNA is shared with orangutans. That shared heritage reveals a profound conclusion: that DNA is a record of the evolution of life on Earth, one that connects us to everything alive today and that has ever lived.

My point is that if there is increasing evidence that everything alive today and that has ever lived is related through its DNA, then copying codes segments backwards and forwards from seemingly different sources isn't as bad as what it sounds. We already know that naturally occurring DNA mutations do not always benefit us (think viruses, birth defects etc.). Therefore the premise that only good things can come from natural sources is completely invalid and to hold a belief saying so is foolhardy. To say that man can never and will never be able to tinker with DNA to a genuine advantage is just as foolish. Both methods will invariably lead to genetic mistakes as they will to true triumphs, this is the most realistic and grounded viewpoint that one can have.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 16:51

Glyphospate is basically a salt... By just watering it down, most larger plant species you mentioned will not translocate it.... And it biodegrades on contact with the soil.. Poor choice of chemical matey..
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 17:04

You're putting a lot of words into our mouths there Andy W.

Tinkering is being done with food and engineered (not natural) chemicals. That is the point you seem to be missing while you avoid direct questions and chat about monkeys and jellyfish.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 17:08

There is more and more evidence coming out about just how nasty glyphosphate is - it does not biodegrade upon contact with soil and can accumulate...so might be worth at least tagging some of those points. In fact here is a long response copied from permaculture.com.au all about glyphospate - enough there for me to suggest to you that you may in fact have picked on a poor choice of chemical:

A few important facts not readily found in information from Monsanto-funded and lobbied government agencies and conservation programs, and subsequently not common knowledge amongst bush regenerators, farmers and gardeners. Sale of Roundup and glyphosate herbicides for controlling “invasive alien non-native species” is a multi-million dollar business, but what are the hidden costs and implications of this popular biocide?

We take a look at some research revelations about Roundup and its constituents, Glyphosate and sufactants, and their impacts on soil, non-target plants, animals, humans and aquatic organisms.

EFFECT ON SOIL

Glyphosate when it comes into contact with soil is adsorbed onto soil particles, binding to soil in a similar way to phosphates, remaining residual for many years . Adsorption of glyphosate is higher in soils containing clay and organic matter than in sandy loam soils. (4)

Glyphosate bound to soil particles can remain active and may be released from soil and taken up by plants. The US-EPA has also stated that many endangered plants may be at risk from glyphosate use in conservation areas.

Glyphosate in soil takes 140 days to break down to half it’s toxicity and will continue to be taken up by plants from the soil for 2 years and longer.

“Some soil invertebrates including springtails, mites and isopods are also adversely affected by glyphosate. Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts” (1)

Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms, Tests using New Zealand’s most common earthworm showed that glyphosate, in amounts as low as 1/20 of standard application rates, reduced its growth and slowed its development.

Roundup inhibits mycorrhizal fungi. Canadian studies have shown that as little as 1 part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or colonization of mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi are essential for tree health, collecting nutrients and water to feed their host plant and protecting tree roots from harmful fungi and root rot diseases.

Glyphosate reduces nitrogen fixation. Amounts as small as 2 parts per million have had significant effects, and effects have been measured up to 120 days after spraying.

Ground spraying of Glyphosate can drift up to 400m in still conditions (i.e. no wind)

EFFECT ON NON-TARGET PLANTS

“Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, is the most extensively used herbicide in the history of agriculture. However, this relatively simple, broad-spectrum, systemic herbicide can have extensive unintended effects on nutrient efficiency and disease severity, thereby threatening sustainability. A significant increase in disease severity associated with the wide spread application of the glyphosate herbicide can be the result of direct glyphosate-induced weakening of plant defenses and increased pathogen population and virulence. Indirect effects of glyphosate on disease predisposition result from immobilization of specific micronutrients involved in disease resistance, reduced growth and vigor of the plant from accumulation of glyphosate in meristematic root, shoot, and reproductive tissues, altered physiological efficiency, or modification of the soil micro?ora affecting the availability of nutrients involved in physiological disease resistance” (8)

Findings of research at Hohenheim University concluded that: “There is a common understanding that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is easily degraded and adsorbed in soils and thus, harmless for use in agriculture. We can demonstrate, however, that this conclusion is wrong and dangerous for farmers because in former risk assessments the behaviour of glyphosate in the rhizosphere was not properly considered.

In nutrient solution, rhizobox and pot experiments we can show that foliar applied glyphosate to target plants is released into the rhizosphere after a fast translocation from shoots to roots. In the rhizosphere glyphosate can obviously be stabilized long enough to achieve negative effects on non-target plants. Such a negative side-effect is for example inhibited acquisition of micronutrients such as Mn, but also Zn, Fe and B, which are involved in plants own disease resistance mechanisms.

From this glyphosate transfer from target to non-target plants (from weeds to trees) we predict an increase in disease problems, particularly on soils with low micronutrient availability as already reported in the USA. In view of plant and soil health, we urgently call for a re-assessment of glyphosate as herbicide.” (9)

Roundup can increase the spread and severity of plant diseases. Over 40 major plant diseases have been found to increase following use of glyphosate including nine different species of root rot (e.g. Fusarium spp, Phytophthora spp, Monosporascus spp), as well as Anthracnose, wilts and rust diseases.

Glyphosate reduces resilience (e.g. cold hardiness, drought tolerance) in trees and their resistance to fungal disease. Damage to non-target trees in woodlands sprayed with Roundup for weed control is greatest 2 years following spray application.

Glyphosate used to control weeds under trees inhibits the trees uptake of essential nutrients including Manganese, Zinc, Iron and Boron, which plants need to fight disease.

Studies in Germany have established a “relationship between glyphosate application and negative effects reported for various non-target organisms in agro-ecosystems. These observations comprise: (1) increased sensitivity to plant diseases, associated with a low Mn-, and Fe- nutritional status, (2) increased nematode infections, (3) inhibition of root growth, possibly induced by glyphosate interactions with the calcium metabolism, (4) reduced honey production due to limited synthesis of flavonoids as flower pigments, and (5) reduced biological nitrogen fixation” (HUBER and MCCAY-BUYS, 1993; KING et al. 2001; KREMER et al. 2001). (9)



EFFECT ON ANIMALS

Roundup kills beneficial insects. Tests conducted by The International Organization for Biological Control showed that Roundup caused mortality of live beneficial species including Thrichgramma, predatory mites, lacewings, ladybugs, and predatory beetles.

“Glyphosate has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in laboratory tests. The National Toxicology Program found that chronic feeding of glyphosate caused salivary gland lesions, reduced sperm counts, and a lengthened estrous cycle (how often an individual comes into heat). Other chronic effects found in laboratory tests include an increase in the frequency of lethal mutations in fruit flies, an increase in frequency of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats along with an increase in the frequency of thyroid tumors in females, and cataracts.” (3)

EFFECT ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS

In Australia most formulations of glyphosate have been banned from use in or near water because of their toxic effects on tadpoles and to a lesser extent on adult frogs. There is also concern about non-lethal effects of the herbicide on frogs.

It has been shown that aquatic wetland communities can be dramatically impacted by low concentrations of pesticides (from run-off) including glyphosate (both separate and combined) and these results offer important insights for the conservation of wetland species and communities. (5)

“Fish and aquatic invertebrates are more sensitive to glyphosate and its formulations. Its toxicity is increased with higher water temperatures and pH. (1)

Primary producers (algae and macrophytes) are amongst the most sensitive test species for glyphosate acid, the IPA salt and Roundup. The most sensitive species reported for glyphosate acid are the beneficial diatoms and green algae, and aquatic plants (macrophytes) (6) This can impact up the aquatic foodchain.

Glyphosate causes DNA damage to tadpoles (7)

Roundup can also cause substantial mortality in juvenile terrestrial frogs and toads. Many frogs that breed in water also routinely use non-aquatic areas and could easily be exposed to glyphosate formulations that contain harmful surfactants through direct application and incidental drift.

Glyphosate toxicity in water has a half-life of 2-12 weeks, but remains residual for much longer periods in sediment where it binds with clay and organic matter.

EFFECT ON HUMANS

Studies on human cells showed toxicity and hormone disruption at sub agricultural levels with effects within 24 hours caused by concentrations as low as 0.5 parts per million. And DNA damage at 5 parts per million. The impact of glyphosate-based herbicides residues in food, feed or in the environment now has thus to be considered real. PMID: 19539684

The exposure of children to glyphosate should be avoided as recent animal studies have shown that commercial formulation of glyphosate is a potent endocrine (hormone) disruptor, causing disturbances in reproductive development when the exposure was during the puberty period (5)

Pregnant women are also at risk as others have found that glyphosate exposure from commercial preparations can affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact. PMID: 17486286 (5)

A study carried out by Swedish oncologists in 2001 showed that glyphosate may induce cancer of the lymphatic system and is considered a risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (5)

Roundup has been found to inhibit the production of steroid hormones and this may result in loss of fertility in men (7)

Exposure of farm workers to smaller amounts of Roundup, for example by rubbing in an eye, is reported to have caused swelling of the eye and lid, rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure, or swelling of the face, due to residues transferred from the hands after touching leaky equipment, while accidental drenching caused eczema of the hands and arms which lasted two months (7)

acute toxic pneumonitis after inhalation of vapors and air-borne droplets containing glyphosate has been diagnosed, based on clinical evidence (7)
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 17:33

Thats absolute rubbish... Where's your link... Are you aware of spray topping? Farmers use a light dose of round up on their pastures to sweeten the pasture and makes it more palatable for they're stock... I spray round up every winter onto dormant warm season turf grasses to get rid of the cool season rubbish.. And every spring, the couch will bounce back out of dormancy... Have you ever heard of a product known as Round Bio? For use around water!!!! And as for your crap that it doesn't biodegrade!! Spray round up on grass beside a dusty road and see what happens... Nothing...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 18:57

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Glyphospate is basically a salt... By just watering it down, most larger plant species you mentioned will not translocate it.... And it biodegrades on contact with the soil.. Poor choice of chemical matey..


That statement in itself is false, Monsanto use to boldly state Biodegradable on its packaging until they were force to remove it.

Quote:
Monsanto guilty in 'false ad' row

Monsanto's weed-killer, Roundup, is the world's best-selling herbicide

France's highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup.

The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean".

The company was fined 15,000 euros (£13,800; $22,400). It has yet to comment on the judgment.

Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide.

Monsanto also sells crops genetically-engineered to be tolerant to Roundup.

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

Andy,
What you are referring to is a Symbyotic relationship,meaning that they both derrive a "mutual" benifit from the arrangement, just like coral Just like termites and just like all the bugs,bacteria and viruses that proliferate on your body and keep you alive....
The Algae that you are referring to is there for mutual benefit, it has not become part of the Jellies DNA same as with Coral and algae when the conditions are not correct the organism that give corals it's colours leaves it's host hence the bleaching, again it is of mutual benefit, that is all

If anything DNA wise was to happen between two similar species then that would happen over thousands of years not over a few in a petri dish in a lab somewhere because some boffin thought it would be a good idea and can make them wads of cash.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 19:15

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Thats absolute rubbish... Where's your link... Are you aware of spray topping? Farmers use a light dose of round up on their pastures to sweeten the pasture and makes it more palatable for they're stock... I spray round up every winter onto dormant warm season turf grasses to get rid of the cool season rubbish.. And every spring, the couch will bounce back out of dormancy... Have you ever heard of a product known as Round Bio? For use around water!!!! And as for your crap that it doesn't biodegrade!! Spray round up on grass beside a dusty road and see what happens... Nothing...

Link was in the first paragraph. If u missed that suspect not much else sank in either so will not respond further to your post.
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 19:31

I'm sorry Bello but there is no link there pal... Please supply it!! Don't run away and hide mate... Lets have a conversation about it....
Ah yeh there it is... Permaculture... Pffft
Posted by: Simmosturf

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 19:39

As I'm not a member of the site, please provide the link to the article....
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 21:38

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Andy,
What you are referring to is a Symbyotic relationship,meaning that they both derrive a "mutual" benifit from the arrangement, just like coral Just like termites and just like all the bugs,bacteria and viruses that proliferate on your body and keep you alive....
The Algae that you are referring to is there for mutual benefit, it has not become part of the Jellies DNA...


Ah yes, my mistake, paraphrasing went a bit astray there...
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/04/2013 22:34

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
As I'm not a member of the site, please provide the link to the article....

Not a member myself either. Link is here: http://permaculture.com.au/online/index....et-species.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 25/04/2013 09:14

Originally Posted By: Simmosturf
Ah yeh there it is... Permaculture... Pffft


Monoculture......pfffftt
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 25/04/2013 14:32

Interesting point of view.



Quote:
Does this make sense to you GMO Insiders? GMO foods are patented by biotechnology yet deemed to be substantially equivalent to conventional foods so the FDA doesn't require labeling.

GMO Inside disagrees with this logic! GMOs have not been proven safe for human consumption and the environmental impacts are unknown. Instead consumers are unknowingly the lab rats for this experimental food that is found in over 80% of processed foods. We cannot continue to allow the double standard of patenting these crops and slipping them into the food supply without consumer knowledge.

Genetic engineering merges DNA from different species, creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.

The eight GMO crops currently available in the U.S. marketplace are: alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soy, sugar beets zucchini and yellow summer squash.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 26/04/2013 10:18

Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers: study

By Carey Gillam
(Reuters) - Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.
The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.
Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says.
We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said.
Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries have warned that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants, people and animals.
The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.
Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup herbicide and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with the Roundup weed killer.
These biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually. Farmers like them because they can spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops.
Roundup is also popularly used on lawns, gardens and golf courses.
Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals.
Jerry Steiner, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, reiterated that in a recent interview when questioned about the study.
"We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied," he said.
Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.
(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

Story

Science Journal
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/04/2013 12:38

More on the toxic reality of glyphosphate: "Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate's inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."
Linky to full article: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/04/2013 17:31

Of course it's toxic to Humans. it's a poison.In reality though it's just another example of what our society does to itself on a daily basis. If you actually consider all the crap we constantly use that is toxic to one degree or another you would lock yourself in a room and never come out.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/04/2013 22:09

...or you would avoid it. Not hard really.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 08:04

Actually pretty impossible to avoid nowadays Jax. Basically everything in our lives has a level of toxicity(above and beyond natural levels). On the other hand while all these things are likely to contribute to our deaths in the end thse that constantly vilify them conveniantly ignoe the fact that we are living longer than ever.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 09:15

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
Of course it's toxic to Humans. it's a poison.In reality though it's just another example of what our society does to itself on a daily basis. If you actually consider all the crap we constantly use that is toxic to one degree or another you would lock yourself in a room and never come out.


That is just a lame excuse, sure you can "lock yourself in a room" or you can choose to do something about it!

You can quite easily avoid things like Glyphosate by simply not using them, eating organic foods is another or growing your own is even better still.

There are all manner of chemicals that surround us in daily life but wouldn't it be better to try and avoid them rather than just adding to them and just saying "oh it is too hard....."You will find your life improves by eliminating them!

Nothing is impossible to avoid if you choose to do so....

And Brett it is not
Quote:
On the other hand while all these things are likely to contribute to our deaths in the end thse that constantly vilify them conveniantly ignoe the fact that we are living longer than ever.

It is the fact that everybody lives at the doctors now days to obtain a pill to cure all ills, rather than changing their lifestyles.

Answer this.... if you go to a doctor and he gives you a pill to "cure" your "condition", but you have to take these pills for the rest of your life.....then that is not actually "curing" you is it? it is just masking your symptoms, it is not getting to the root cause of the problem and fixing it.
That is the problem with todays society nobody want to change their lifestyle because it is "too hard" and it is easier to do nothing....
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 11:09

YS. People used to die at 50. Now we are healthy and relatively fit at that age. Yes often people live out their last ten years in a crappy state(which I don't agree with at all) but the fact is we live longer lives because of many of the things that are constantly derided.And again YS you conveniantly ignore the fact that the lifestyle you have been able to choose for yourself atm has been allowed because of the things you now decry.Had you gone the 'natural' lifestyle without the benifits of modern'advancements' there is a good chance you wouldn't have made it this far. I would love to see a lot of things out of our lives but the fact is they do benifit us in some ways. Take Sunscreen for example. Stops sunburn for sure but I guarantee it has a slight hint of toxicity to it. Not enough to be a problem on it's own but when you add it to all the other things that have that 'slight' hint of toxicity it all combines to cause problems. However those problems probably come later than they otherwise would have.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 11:34

Sunscreen has more than a "slight hint of toxicity" - one of its ingredients, Oxybenzone, is a likely carcinogen. It also blocks vitamin D absorption, which is not a good thing. Sunscreens also contain nanoparticles these days, the effects of which are yet to be seen or decided. Bit like glyphosate really, use it willy nilly and worry later what the effects of it really are.

When I said it's easy to avoid toxic crap I didn't mean it in a broad, meaningless way, I was speaking from experience. It's just a matter of educating yourself and then making informed choices and decisions.

By the way, plenty of people still die at 50 Brett - mostly after having had modern medical "treatments" by way of radiation and toxic chemicals...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 11:35

People used to die at 50? when was that in the very very early days? i have done a family tree search and the bulk of my rellies back in the late 1800s turn of the century live into their 80's and 90's. even earlier that that, they still live 'till a good age.

Had i gone natural at an earlier age? i only wish i had have now and listened to people back then! I can tell you for a fact that i am much healthier now than i was in my late teen-early 20's, haven't had a cold/flu in about 2 years and the last one that i did have only lasted about 1/2 a day with a runny nose.

Before changing lifestyle i used to catch every cold,bug or germ that was going around..... now i don't......

Sunscreen stops sunburn, but so does a long sleeve shirt and hat...or even the shade of a tree.

Some things may benefit you in the short term but in the long run, there will be a negative benefit to your health.

As i said before it all boils down to change and no one wants to do that is it may disrupt their luscious lifestyle..

It’s a bit like solar, you claim “it is to expensive,” but isn’t doing nothing going to cost you more?
It is a bit like buying a car, there is the initial outlay, but as soon as you take that car out of the lot you are LOOSING money, every year you own that car you are LOOSING money, then there is the cost of Petrol Insurance and rego every year on top of that...

With solar sure there is an initial outlay but once the system has been installed it is SAVING you money, not costing you money on power bills! as soon as the system is switched on, it is starting to pay for itself by reducing your power bills, once it has paid itself off it is then making you money buy either not having to pay your power bill or by giving you a credit on your power bill.
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 11:52

You just don't seem to get the point do you YS. Listen carefully. The average lifespan is longer now than it used to be. It is still going up. This is due to the advancements that have been made throughout the last couple of centuries. Many of those advncements are what you vilify as evil. I agree many of these things make us sick in the long run. I also understand they benifit us. I also understand that if we just give them all up then that extended lifespan will go backwards. You espouse natural medicines? If we all did that then you or your children and family would have had a much larger chance of dying young from dieases like polio. Do you agree with that or do you actually think alternative medicines prevent that? Maybe your kids would have died in childbirth or if they break a bone they are far more likely to die from infection and complications. Organic foods? I agree with you that they are healthier and if we all had time to grow our own it would be great but we don't. people have to work hard to keep our society going. And the fact is as much as you deny it, you still benifit from that society and all the hard work that goes into it. You use our roads don't you? People work long hours to keep those roads functioning and you directly benifit from that. I have no problem with solar annd as I have stated previously I think it should be on every house in the country along with a smmall wind turbine. However in my situation it is not worth the outlay atm. In the future it might be. The simple life certainly has it's appeals but it also has it's downfalls. I just don't understand how you don't see that.
Nor do I understand how you cannot see that you still utilise all the so called evils that you point out on a daily basis. As I have said before you have every right to see the modern benifits as evil to the environment or humans but at least admit that untill you COMPLETELY remove yourself from this society that you are being somewhat hypocritical.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 12:27

Is it really so black and white? I see no problem with YS or anyone else pointing out the obvious ills of modern society, nor in willfully avoiding them. If people choose to use products that are likely to harm them long term because they find them convenient in the short term, that's their business. If they prefer to go to a doctor for their ailments that's fine too. If they like plastic convenience food over wholesome natural food, they're welcome to it. But if I prefer to avoid known toxins and to eat well and not get sick in the first place then surely that's me contributing to society - I'm not taking up precious space in doctors waiting rooms and or filling hospital beds that are needed by others.

Suggesting that living this way is hypocritcal simply because people use infrastructure and technology is... yeah, don't think I really need to go there. Taxes anyone?
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 12:43

It's not that I have a problem with anyone doing what they can(i have stated before that I applaud YS for the effort. My problem is the suggestion we should all do it. That suggests a feeling of superiorority on YS's behalf and given the fact that YS utilises what we should all it is a bit hypocritical. Now, we are all hypocritical at some stage so that in itself isn't a problemm(if we admit it it at least shows we understnd it), but I don't like being preached to by someone that is far from perfect(in regards to what they are preaching).
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 13:33

Polio, was eradicated with the help of increased sanitary conditions .....and face it just because a child is immunized does not mean that the will not catch that disease, they still will!
we have friend that religiously get the flu shot every year... and anytime we see them one of them has always got the flu or a cold "oh but it is not that so they tell us..."

Modern medicines,yeah all the modern day chemicals make us sick and then the doctors make us better,(in theory) you only have to look to companies like Monsanto, they Make you sick with all of their chemicals, but guess what? they own plenty of pharmaceutical companies that will give you expensive little pills to take for the rest of your life...

The way it is Brett no matter what i did you would class it as being "hypocritical", just because i have solar panels that were manufactured using "modern techniques" then i am a hypocrite,i must be a hypocrite because any time i do something under my own steam i am using my own "fossil energy..."
Being a hypocrite is not wanting to change for change's sake because it is too hard..
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 17:36

I get a flu shot every year too and occasionally I get the flu but what you don't seem to understand about vaccinations is that they aren't a shield, no vaccination will stop you from catching something but what they and do brilliantly is severely lessen the effects of what you catch if you have been vaccinated against it in the first place.

You live in an area that is riddled with Leptospirosis. Ever heard of it?

Want bet that your organic foods can protect you against it or help cure it if you get infected?

Topic: Leptospirosis

Description

Leptospirosis is a disease that is caused by a number of different bacteria called Leptospira. Leptospira bacteria have been found in both domestic and wild animals. Humans become infected through contact with water, food, or soil contaminated with urine from these infected animals. This may happen by swallowing contaminated food or water, through skin contact or contact with mucosal surfaces such as the eyes, mouth or nose. The disease occurs most commonly in people who are exposed to the bacteria during their work, for example farmers, veterinarians, and meat workers. However there have been cases from exposure through outdoor activities such as swimming, wading and white-water rafting in rivers and lakes.


Symptoms

The disease varies in severity. Many people experience fever, headaches, and muscle pain. Nausea, vomiting and bloodshot eyes may also occur. If left untreated, some people develop complications. In rare instances, these complications can be fatal.

The illness usually lasts from three days to three weeks. Recovery can take much longer if left untreated.

Treatment

Prompt treatment with appropriate antibiotics is recommended to avoid complications and prolonged illness.

Health Outcome

People with leptospirosis usually recover well after antibiotic treatment. Hospitalisation may be required for more complicated cases.

A person who has had leptospirosis can develop the disease again as there are a number of different strains of the bacteria. It is unlikely that they would be reinfected with the same strain.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/04/2013 19:09

Ah, that is something i do understand.... everyone else seems to think that being vaccinated is the be all and end all, it's not, natural immunity is the best thing.

And you have just as much chance of catching lepto where you are, when rats and mice come visiting your backyard and leave little calling cards in the mud...

Lepto is generally caught when cuts/open wounds are exposed to infected waterlogged soils.....Alternative medicines are wonderful things, maybe you should give it a try, it may just cure some of you health problems.
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 08:25

Originally Posted By: Brett Guy
It's not that I have a problem with anyone doing what they can(i have stated before that I applaud YS for the effort. My problem is the suggestion we should all do it. That suggests a feeling of superiorority on YS's behalf and given the fact that YS utilises what we should all it is a bit hypocritical. Now, we are all hypocritical at some stage so that in itself isn't a problemm(if we admit it it at least shows we understnd it), but I don't like being preached to by someone that is far from perfect(in regards to what they are preaching).


Brett, I think what you have identified is an attitude that is evolving somewhat in society today. The following is a quote from Tony Abbott's review on a book named: The Lucky Culture

Originally Posted By: TA Review - The Lucky Culture
As Cater sees it, there’s a powerful new commentariat, dominant in the media, academia and public administration, that is every bit as condescending as the aristocracy he left behind in Britain. In contemporary Australia, the worst snobbery is not directed towards people of lower status, he says, but towards people of different opinions. He thinks that this ‘my opinion must be better than yours’ conceit is putting at risk the egalitarianism that’s at the heart of Australians’ sense of self.

What distinguishes this group from every other influential sector of society is its unshakeable conviction in its moral superiority. Everyone who disputes its thinking is not just wrong, but inferior. Critics of the politically correct consensus are not just bad thinkers but verge on being bad people, as those who are cautious about gay marriage are starting to discover.


Onto other things...

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_Shak
Ah, that is something i do understand.... everyone else seems to think that being vaccinated is the be all and end all, it's not, natural immunity is the best thing.


You don't understand vaccinations at all. Do you think that someone who's suffered polio has would prefer natural immunity or vaccination?

Polio Wiki Link

Closer to home, Hendra virus... You say it's better to develop a natural immunity to it yeah?

...
A second human Hendra victim was confirmed in October 1995 with the death of Mackay sugarcane farmer Mark Preston, 35, who was found to have contracted the virus 13 months earlier. Preston had fought it off initially - unbeknown to his doctors, who had no way of diagnosing it at the time - suggesting that the virus can lie dormant in the system and reappear at any time.

...

It was July 2008 and the young woman had the job she had always wanted at the Redlands Veterinary Clinic, looking after horses and working with people who were more like family than colleagues. Looking back, it seems like another life. Her life before Hendra virus.

"I'm still tired all the time," Beohm is saying, nearly five long years later. She has ventured to Melbourne to find herself, such as she can, after contracting a disease that has baffled and horrified scientists and doctors in equal measure. "I still get pain all down my right side. I get night tremors. I can't hear out of my right ear," she explains, the weariness heavy in her voice. "I could keep going on about what this thing has done to me, but what's the point? I just have to live with it."

Beohm, 25, is one of only three known survivors of Hendra virus. Her friend and mentor, Ben Cunneen, a 33-year-old equine vet who was also struck down, died the day after she was released from hospital.


These are but two examples of how the lack of vaccinations have severely impacted on people's lives in a negative fashion.

The reason why the flu vaccination is not always 100% effective is mainly because the mutation rate of the influenza virus is reasonably high. Another thing that people fail to realise is that catching the common cold is a very different thing to catching full blown influenza. When I suffered a bout of influenza about 15 years ago I could not get out of bed for a week and dropped 15kg (I was in the normal BMI weight range before contracting it). Keeping up the fluids to stave off dehydration was an incredibly tough task. This is what the flu shot is designed to try and protect people from, not a bout of the sniffles per se`.

Again though, this seems but another example where you are happy to see people severely compromised / die in the persuit of a crazy ideology that you subscribe to. If you are letting these ideals dictate your family values then I pity your family. It's one thing to make these types of decisions on a personal level when the only person that is affected is you, but its another kettle of fish when you take for granted the love and trust of those that look to you to provide for them for physical and emotional needs.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 08:56

As stated polio was not eradicated by vaccination alone, it come about by improvements in sanitation conditions.

Chickenpox anyone? and if you do get vaccinated for chicken pox and then do not get the disease when you are a child in the latter parts of your life you then are exposed to shingles which is far, far worse than chicken pox!,that condition can last months if not the rest of your life....(ask someone who has or has been through it and you will soon find out)

Yet if you catch chicken pox as a child, you will never catch it again! (or shingles for that matter)

Whooping cough, can still be caught even if a child is immunized, Hep B can still be caught even if immunized as they only immunize for "certain strains"
Flu Vaccinations, they only immunize for "certain strains"

Oh, so i am Morally superior so you claim? now if i were, i could have ripped you to shreds over your false Jelly fish and DNA claims but i didn't did i...........

Like Doctors claim everything as gospel?
[
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 09:13

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Oh, so i am Morally superior so you claim? now if i were, i could have ripped you to shreds over your false Jelly fish and DNA claims but i didn't did i...........


Your restraint humbled me no end laugh

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
As stated polio was not eradicated by vaccination alone, it come about by improvements in sanitation conditions.

Chickenpox anyone? and if you do get vaccinated for chicken pox and then do not get the disease when you are a child in the latter parts of your life you then are exposed to shingles which is far, far worse than chicken pox!,that condition can last months if not the rest of your life....(ask someone who has or has been through it and you will soon find out)

Yet if you catch chicken pox as a child, you will never catch it again! (or shingles for that matter)

Whooping cough, can still be caught even if a child is immunized, Hep B can still be caught even if immunized as they only immunize for "certain strains"
Flu Vaccinations, they only immunize for "certain strains"


Don't go throwing the baby out with the bath water now! Chicken Pox is an excellent example of a disease with negligible mortality that if contracted, the payoff is much better than the short term side effects.

Re: Hepatitis B

Hep B is a strain of itself so therefore providing you develop the appropriate anti-bodies from the vaccination, you will most likely be protected. What hep B vaccines don't protect you from is hepatitis A C E because they are in themselves different strains. There is also a hepatitis D but with a Hep B vaccination you are protected as the Hep D virus needs a Hep B infection to gain a foot hold.

Each issue needs to be viewed on its own merits, you cannot make broad sweeping statements to conclusively prove a point right across the board. Again, your arguments are flawed and could very possibly result in very negative repercussions for those that choose to follow in your footsteps.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 11:27

Hep B is used as an example, as that is the one that is routinely given for Vaccinations, my point with that is they only use/Vaccinate against 2 of the strains of hep B, yet there are over 120 different strains of Hep A,B,C,D,E,F.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 12:04

Quote:
Only 24,500 doses have been bought by horse owners since the vaccine's launch in November, less than a fifth of the 120,000 sales projected by Zoetis Australia and its US parent, Pfizer.

Zoetis general manager Mike van Blommestein blamed the poor take-up on "lackadaisical" vets and unfounded rumours about the vaccine's safety.

The disappointing sales will puncture early hopes that mass inoculation of the 900,000 horses said by the company to be at risk of the virus.

"The fact of the matter is, the smaller the production volume, the higher is the cost of your production unit . . . these things are all related to production volumes at the end of the day."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hea...6-1226598563416


Quote:
VAPP is, in fact, the predominant form of the disease in developed countries like the US since 1973.3 The problem of vaccine-induced polio paralysis was so severe that the The United States moved to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 2000, after the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended altogether eliminating the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV), which is still used throughout the third world, despite the known risks.

Polio underscores the need for a change in the way we look at so-called "vaccine preventable" diseases as a whole. In most people with a healthy immune system, a poliovirus infection does not even generate symptoms. Only rarely does the infection produce minor symptoms, e.g. sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal disturbances, and influenza-like illness. In only 3% of infections does virus gain entry to the central nervous system, and then, in only 1-5 in 1000 cases does the infection progress to paralytic disease.

Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world's vaccines are given to the third world as "charity," when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can't vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India's new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the "cure" may be far worse than the disease itself.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/polio-vaccines-now-1-cause-polio-paralysis
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/04/2013 17:20

Natural resistance - yes that works well with things like Malaria, polio, whooping cough, measles, chicken pox, leprosy, smallpox plague etc in South America, PNG, Malaysia, Indonesia where they had no natural resistance and only by locking away infected populations did they survive back in the 1700's to 1900's etc.
Posted by: Moldy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 01/05/2013 09:07

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

Chickenpox anyone? and if you do get vaccinated for chicken pox and then do not get the disease when you are a child in the latter parts of your life you then are exposed to shingles which is far, far worse than chicken pox!,that condition can last months if not the rest of your life....(ask someone who has or has been through it and you will soon find out)

Yet if you catch chicken pox as a child, you will never catch it again! (or shingles for that matter)


YS, this statement is definitely a falsehood and you need to do more research on preventable diseases.

If you are immunised against chicken pox,(varicella zoster) your chances of developing a full blown case of chicken pox (and its associated complications, chicken pox encephalitis, chicken pox pneumonitis, necrotising fasciitis)
is greatly reduced even negated.

As well, the virus is not afforded the opportunity to remain dormant in a nerve pathway, usually thoracic/ chest region but occasionally nerves feeding other areas of the body, ie eyes therefore reactivating as painful shingles later in life, often after a period of stress to the body.

If you have never had chicken pox or been vaccinated and you are exposed to Grandmas shingles, you have a very good chance of developing chicken pox no matter how healthy you are.

It does appear the younger you are when you contract the virus, the less severe the symptoms which explains why some people and their mothers cant recall them developing chicken pox as a child when older siblings had it. If babes, they may have only had a few lesions thought to be mossie bites or similar and a bit of a cold. This contrasts significantly with other now immunised diseases which affect babes much more severely and often fatally.

So, in a nutshell, you have to have had chicken pox at sometime in your life to develop shingles later in life. This is borne out by the demographics of people who develop shingles - they were never immunised. As the actual vaccine has only been available in Aust for about 15yrs.

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

As stated polio was not eradicated by vaccination alone, it come about by improvements in sanitation conditions.


It's suggested it was actually the increase in cleanliness and hygiene around the home that brought about the increase in the number of children developing polio infection. There are countries where there is no vaccination and the levels of polio is low.

The theory is the children in these areas are exposed to the virus as babies, crawling in dirt and putting objects in their mouth that is contaminated with the virus shed from other children and adults defacating on the ground or carried on feet or hands. Hence the child develops passive immunity.
The poliovirus is dirt borne and can never be eradicated, only the disease it causes can be eradicated
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/05/2013 10:39

there has been a campaign going for a while now to Boycott Kellogg's products (in the US) due to the use of GM ingredients in it's products.

Report: Kellogg Co. earnings dip 11 percent due to increased costs, slumping sales

Kellogg Company is reporting a 11 percent drop in first quarter earnings.

Earnings and sales both missed analyst expectations, sending Kellogg shares, which peaked last week, down 2 percent to $63.32, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The cereal and snack producer is reporting a $311 million profit, or 85 cents a share, down from $351 million, or 98 cents a share, a year earlier. Per-share earnings fell to 99 cents from $1.08.

Costs jumping 80 percent in the first quarter due to price of grains and other ingredients are to blame for the missing targets, the company told analysts and reporters on Thursday.

CEO John Bryant said the company would not use cost deflation to cut prices or ramp up promotion, according to the report.

The company is struggling to reach high-income cereal eaters, the WSJ reports, but continues to see sales improve with younger generations. Snack sales are also slacking.

With 2012 sales of $14.2 billion, Kellogg is the world's leading cereal company; second largest producer of cookies, crackers and savory snacks; and a leading North American frozen foods company. Among its many well-known brands are: Kellogg's, Keebler, Special K, Pringles, Frosted Flakes, Pop-Tarts, Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies, Kashi, Cheez-It, Eggo, Coco Pops, and Mini-Wheats.
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michi...t_more_business
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/06/2013 14:05

Kansas Wheat Farmer Sues Monsanto for Gross Negligence Following Discovery of GMO Leak Due to Destruction of Wheat Market

WICHITA, KAN. — /PRNewswire/ — A Kansas wheat farmer today filed a civil lawsuit against Monsanto alleging gross negligence and other causes of action following press reports last week of the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat in an 80-acre field in Oregon. The farmer seeks compensation for damages caused by the discovery, which sent wheat export futures prices spiraling downward. The case may be the first of many Monsanto faces over alleged wheat contamination.

Susman Godfrey, one of the nation’s leading trial firms, along with co-counsel the Murray Law Firm and Goldman Phipps, PLLC, filed the case before the Honorable Monti Belot, in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

“Monsanto has failed our nation’s wheat farmers,” said Stephen Susman, Susman Godfrey’s lead attorney on the case. “We believe Monsanto knew of the risks its genetically altered wheat posed and failed to protect farmers and their crops from those risks.”

After news broke of the discovery of the unapproved wheat, Japan and South Korea suspended some imports of American wheat, and the European Union, which imports more than 1 million tons of U.S. wheat a year, said it would ensure its “zero tolerance” policy against genetically modified crops was maintained. Kansas exports about 90 percent of its wheat.

According to Martin Phipps, who litigated similar contamination claims involving the U.S. rice crop over the past several years, the reaction in Asian and European markets does not come as a surprise. “Our agricultural trading partners have little tolerance when it comes to genetically modified foods. Contamination of non-GMO crops presents a huge risk to our agricultural economy.”

Monsanto developed and planted the experimental wheat in open fields from 1998 to 2005. The company engineered the wheat to be resistant to glyphosate, the key ingredient in its own weed killer, Roundup. However the company never submitted the wheat to federal agencies for commercial approval when it became apparent that world markets did not want any form of genetically modified wheat.

Given the size of the wheat crop, farmers may face significant damages. New Orleans trial lawyer Stephen Murray stated: “The full extent of the damage Monsanto has caused is not yet known, but we are committed to helping farmers as the extent of the wheat contamination becomes clear.”

Stephen Susman, founder of Susman Godfrey, along with Warren Burns, Terry Oxford, and Daniel Charest make up the Susman Godfrey team representing Plaintiff Ernest Barnes. Susman Godfrey’s co-counsel include Stephen Murray and Arthur Murray of the Murray Law Firm and Martin Phipps of San Antonio’s Goldman Phipps.

http://occupymonsanto360.org/blog/2013/0...f-wheat-market/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/06/2013 08:23

Monsanto shares fall as South Korea joins pause in wheat imports

Investors drove down the price of Monsanto shares by 4 percent on Friday as South Korea joined Japan in suspending imports of U.S. wheat after an unapproved strain of genetically modified wheat was discovered in a field in eastern Oregon.

The strain of wheat, designed to resist harmful effects from Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, was never commercially developed by the St. Louis-based agriculture giant in large part because wheat growers did not want to risk retaliation from their biggest export markets.

Fields used to test new crop varieties are burned and checked for surviving crops. So the mysterious appearance of the Monsanto wheat has raised questions about how the strain traveled there and whether it is lurking in the commercial wheat crop.

As a precaution, South Korea, which last year bought about half of its wheat imports from the United States, said it would halt purchases while it runs tests this weekend on wheat and flour that it has already imported. The European Union is also testing supplies.

“This is an embarrassment for Monsanto, not as much with the public as it is with food companies, ” said Gene Grabowski, executive vice president of Levick, a communications and public relations firm. Grabowski, a former senior executive at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said cereal and other food product firms selling in Japan or Europe haven’t wanted to go to the expense of making sure their wheat sources were free of genetic engineering.

“I was in board meetings where I remember food company CEOs who were very concerned about the idea that Monsanto was pushing for approval for biotech wheat,” he said. “They didn’t want it because they already had their hands full dealing with repercussions of biotech corn and soy.”

But Monsanto, which is still testing strains of gene-altered wheat in Hawaii and North Dakota, relies heavily on genetically modified (GM) seeds that make up anywhere from 80 percent to more than 90 percent of U.S. corn, soybean and cotton crops.

“GM technology is extremely important for Monsanto,” said Frank Mitsch, an analyst with Wells Fargo. “Fully three-quarters of company profits are coming from those three crops driven in large part by the GM technology.”

In addition to their widespread adoption in the United States, genetically modified corn and soy seeds are spreading in Latin America, especially in Brazil and Argentina, Mitsch said.

Though there have been widespread protests about genetically modified foods, many lawmakers in Congress support alteration of crops. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, in 2011 hailed the Agriculture Department’s decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa.

“Alfalfa was one of nearly two dozen genetically modified crops awaiting USDA evaluation and approval — a bottlenecked process that hinders growth and progress,” she said in a statement. (Stabenow received $570,515 from agribusiness political action committees in 2012; her spokesman did not return calls on Thursday or Friday.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e...1a47_story.html
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/06/2013 16:40

http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking...r-1226658414948

Monsanto starts field testing new wheat strain.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/06/2013 11:51

NY Times Publishes Kraft Mac & Cheese Warning Label

What’s considered the most respected newspaper in the world today published the Kraft warning label that a Food Babe reader found in the UK on an imported US box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. I want to thank the NY Times for investigating and broadcasting this label to the world and millions of Americans in their newspaper and online for everyone to see. This is a huge victory in food awareness!

Given all the media coverage since March, it is now becoming blatantly apparent that there are serious concerns with the ingredients in Kraft Mac & Cheese. Everyone who reads the NY Times today will see the 2 warnings:

Warning #1: This Product May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children (This warning label is required because The US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese has artificial food dyes yellow #5 and yellow #6 which are proven to be linked to hyperactivity in children.)

Warning #2: GMO Declaration: Made from genetically modified wheat. (May contain GMO) (This warning label is required because the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese contains GMOs.)


There was quite a bit of speculation about this label last week. Many people on the internet questioned if it was real and where it came from. According to the report in the NY Times, in video evidence I posted, and in two other videos here and here, we can now conclude the following:

The NY Times verified that this is in fact a real label on US Kraft Mac & Cheese sold in the UK.
We know that Kraft does not label, distribute or export the US version of Mac & Cheese officially. (To echo my quote in The NY Times, I find it extremely bizarre that Kraft had no knowledge of their products being sold and widely available in one of the largest retailers in the world (Tesco) and are trying to pass this off as a black market supply.)
Kraft has confirmed they do not use GMO wheat. (However, no one to my knowledge has tested the product to verify this 100%, which is important considering the contamination of GMO wheat in Oregon.)
Kraft customer service confirmed use of other GMOs in their products (see video evidence here).
Given all the public statements that Kraft has made to the media about this label so far – they have not attempted to refute one important fact – Their product “May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children.” This is truth they can’t deny.
Tesco who sells the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese in their “World Foods” section confirmed the label is placed on by the distributor – Innovative Bites.
The case is still not solved. THERE IS STILL A MAJOR QUESTION UNANSWERED. No one has been able to get in touch with distributor Innovative Bites (including me) to find out why they used the words “made with genetically modified wheat” on the label.

Full story
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/06/2013 11:39

Originally Posted By: SBT
Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years.

If there is a "cocktail effect" it would first show up in farmers, but they have among the lowest cancer rates of any group. Carcinogenic effects of pesticides could show up as stomach cancer, but stomach cancer rates have fallen faster than any other. Sixty years ago, all Britain's food was organic; we lived only until our early sixties, malnutrition and food poisoning were rife. Now, modern agriculture (including the careful use of well-tested chemicals) makes food cheap and safe and we live into our eighties.

People in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of the weed killer glyphosate in their urine


People in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of the weed killer glyphosate in their urine, show the results of tests commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe and released today [1].

The findings raise concerns about increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, commonly used by farmers, public authorities and gardeners across Europe. The use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown in Europe [2].

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. This is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies.

“Most people will be worried to discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. We tested people living in cities in 18 countries and found traces in every country. These results suggest we are being exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our health.

“Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate.”


Read more:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gmo-and-mon...-europe/5338868
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/06/2013 21:26

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
NY Times Publishes Kraft Mac & Cheese Warning Label



People BUY macaroni and cheese?? In a box?? With a label that doesn't mention cheese??

I should have a proper look around the supermarket, just for the entertainment value.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/06/2013 22:01

That is one of the main reasons why i like to go shopping! to get a good laugh evillaugh
When you read some of the crap that people eat? and they pass it off as food?
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 21/06/2013 07:31

Guess ys you've caught up with how the above mentioned wheat got to Oregon hmmm it's all gone a little quiet

Ec
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 22/06/2013 12:01

FW I haven't heard? can you enlighten me.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/06/2013 09:48

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
Guess ys you've caught up with how the above mentioned wheat got to Oregon hmmm it's all gone a little quiet

Ec


Probably the same as with other area's countries that never actually planted GM crops, but when the crops were tested they were found to have transgenic material in the (GM Genes)

So companies like Monsanto probably used the "oh well" it is here now you might as well plant the full GM crop and get some benefits from it....

You can see in the states that the tide has turned away from GM crops.
Posted by: Locke

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/06/2013 10:28

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
That is one of the main reasons why i like to go shopping! to get a good laugh evillaugh
When you read some of the crap that people eat? and they pass it off as food?


On a trip to Fraser Island I made a few years back, an american backpacker tried to feed a "twistie" to one of the local goannas which proceeded to take off the tip of his finger instead.

I guess wildlife understands the difference between fresh and processed food.

True story.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/06/2013 14:32

That story doesn't surprise me Locke, animals are smarter than we give them credit for. My dog gave googy eyes to a stranger eating a hamburger to the point that he offered her the last mouthful. She took it, tasted it and then spat it out. Geez, if even a dog won't eat something...

So things haven't gone quiet in Oregon Farm Weather, you just haven't heard what's happening. The mainstream media are apparently not interested that (GMO company) Sygenta's GMO beet crops were the targeted by arsonists - a Google search shows NO mainstream news teams are touching the story. Hungary's GMO crops are also burning, although it is their government doing it, unlike in the US, where the FBI are chasing down the "domestic terrorists" responsible for "economic sabotage" in the night-time arson attacks against Synergy's crop.

I wonder if the FBI would be investigating if someone had sabotaged Joe Bloggs' organic crop? Oh, silly me, that'd only happen if organic farmers were a large corporation that paid mountains of money for political support.

Oh, mainstream media isn't touching the Hungary story either. Only positive stories for the masses when it comes to GMOs in the food supply.


Quote:
FBI Investigating GMO Crop Sabotage in Oregon

Two plots of land containing genetically engineered sugar beets in Jackson County, Oregon were sabotaged this month according to the FBI.

The crops, on private farmland run by the Swiss-based GMO company Syngenta, were destroyed in what the FBI is calling an “economic sabotage.”

Over 1,000 sugar beet plants were destroyed sometime during the night of June 8, followed by 5,500 plants on June 11 according to FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele.

While no information has been revealed regarding a possible motive behind the act, many assume the sabotage is in response to the growing disdain for GMO’s among the public.

Other possible motives could be against Syngenta themselves, a company who recently settled a $105 million class action lawsuit after its weed killer Atrazine leaked into the drinking supply of more than 52 million Americans. A 2010 study by biologists at UC Berkeley revealed that the herbicide disrupted the sexual reproduction of frogs, turning 1 in 10 male frogs into females.

Syngenta was also criminally charged last year for paying a German Farmer 40,000 euros to keep quiet after their genetically modified corn killed dozens of cows.

Similar incidents have continued to occur across the world. Agriculture officials in Hungary burned over 1,000 acres of corn crops earlier this year after they discovered the crops to be genetically modified.

Given that sabotage of GMO crops is incredibly rare in the US, GMO companies are likely to see continued peaceful protest and boycott of their products.
http://www.examiner.com/article/fbi-investigating-gmo-crop-sabotage-oregon


Here's a little more news, sort of related to Oregon given that the law suit began because of GM wheat turning up there on a farm where it shouldn't have, 12 years after trials were carried out by Monsanto.


Quote:
Quote:
MONSANTO SUED OVER GMO WHEAT DISCOVERY


WICHITA, Kan.—In a lawsuit filed against Monsanto Company, a Kansas farmer is seeking more than $100,000 in damages following a discovery that has alienated importers of U.S. wheat.

Ernest Barnes has sued Monsanto in federal court, claiming his "livelihood is now at serious risk" due to the company's "negligence or gross negligence."

The complaint cites "sharply declining" wheat prices and decisions by Japan and South Korea to suspend certain imports of the crop after the discovery of genetically-modified wheat on an Oregon farm came to light.

Years earlier, Monsanto was authorized to test the crop in several states including Kansas although it never was approved for commercial production or sale. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has launched a probe into how the crop ended up on the farm.

"Monsanto has failed our nation's wheat farmers," said Stephen Susman, Susman Godfrey's lead attorney on the case, in a statement. "We believe Monsanto knew of the risks its genetically altered wheat posed and failed to protect farmers and their crops from those risks."

Monsanto, the agricultural biotechnology company based in St. Louis, Mo., maintains the lawsuit is premature and unfounded.

“Tractor chasing lawyers have prematurely filed suit without any evidence of fault and in advance of the crop’s harvest," said David Snively, Monsanto Executive Vice President and General Counsel, in a statement.

Barnes, through his attorneys, is seeking a jury trial in a lawsuit that has asserted eight causes of action against Monsanto.

"Monsanto failed to keep proper safe zones between fields and failed to utilize other measures such as tarps to prevent the genetically modified wheat from escaping the test areas and cross-pollinating and thereby contaminating fields that were supposed to only contain non-genetically modified wheat," the lawsuit alleges.

However, Monsanto noted the wheat discovery is limited to just one farm since it terminated its testing program years ago. The genetically-modified wheat is resistant to the herbicide, glyphosate.

"There is considerable reason to believe that the presence of glyphosate tolerance in wheat, if determined to be valid, is very limited," the company said. "Given the care undertaken no legal liability exists and the company will present a vigorous defense.

http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2013/06/monsanto-sued-over-gmo-wheat-discovery.aspx"


Interesting that Monsanto's Executive Vice President is also their General Counsel (and kind of funny that his name is Snively). Pathetic that he resorts to calling the opposing team's counsel "tractor chasing lawyers"...although it's a good indication of the disdain the company shows to anyone prepared to get in their way.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/06/2013 11:47

There have been plenty of cases where animals just won't touch GM seeds as i guess they have better survival instincts than humans do?



There was a program on GEM the other night called fat, sick and nearly dead, where an overweight sick Aussie guy when across America talking to people (mainly overweight) and the common thread amongst the majority of them was they ate no fruit or vegetables, and they knew that the "food" that they were eating was doing them no good and was killing them and the majority said that they only expected to live to the '50's.

When the guy asked them to try the vegetable juice, they all tried it with trepidation, but the normal response was "oh, it's not for me" he also asked them "if there was something you could do that would add years to your life, like changing your diet, would you?" the general response was "no, it's just too hard"

So, people would rather just eat junk and die early because it is "too hard" to eat healthy?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/07/2013 10:52

MONSANTO UNAPPROVED GMO WHEAT ESCAPES FROM THE LAB, LAWSUITS FOLLOW

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, recently reported the finding of unapproved genetically modified wheat in an Oregon field—and nobody knows where it came from. This is of concern, especially to farmers, but raises a larger question too. If genetic modification is the future, how will we control our creations?

The wheat at the center of this mystery was genetically modified to resist Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. The Oregon farmer discovered the plants growing in a fallow field and tried to kill them with the widely-used herbicide. When they survived, he sent samples to Oregon State University where tests revealed it had been genetically modified to contain a Roundup resistant CP4/maize EPSPS gene. The USDA later confirmed these findings.

Although Monsanto got FDA approval for the wheat in food, they withdrew their EPA application in 2004, due to farmers worried about the potential loss of markets in Europe and Asia. The firm ended field trials and never marketed the product.

Since the wheat was found and tested, Monsanto has been on the offensive to control what’s fast became a public relations mess.

Chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, noted to the press that the unapproved plants were found growing on less than one percent of the farmer’s 125-acre field, and Monsanto’s subsequent tests showed no sign of cross-contamination.

“It seems likely to be a random, isolated occurrence more consistent with the accidental or purposeful mixing of a small amount of seed during the planting, harvesting or during the fallow cycle in an individual field.”

The firm stopped planting Roundup Ready wheat in Oregon over 12 years ago, the seeds are only viable for two years in the soil, and this is the first incident since trials ended in 2005. Monsanto isn’t implicating the farmer, but they aren’t ruling out a deliberate act of sabotage by someone else.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have postponed imports of US white wheat from the region while they continue to study information from US officials. Meanwhile, citing economic damages, Monsanto has been sued by an environmental group and Washington farm and another group in Kansas.

Heading up the Washington lawsuit, the Center for Food Safety stated, “Because scheduled shipments already have been postponed and canceled, the presence of genetically engineered wheat has detrimentally impacted the domestic and global wheat markets and damaged plaintiffs and other wheat farmers.”

Whether Monsanto is to blame or they’re the victim—how we control genetically modified plants or other organisms is a futuristic debate beginning in the here and now.

There are benefits to genetically modified crops. These include resistance to herbicides, diseases, and pests, better yield, increased shelf-life, and the potential for biofuel production. But opponents question whether genetically modified crops are safe, environmentally friendly, and whether genetically modified crops are really needed to address the world’s food needs.

Although, in this case, it appears the wheat did not spread, it can be difficult to predict the impact genetically modified organisms will have once released into the world at large.

It’s generally in Monsanto’s interest to avoid such errors. But clearly they are not immune. And perhaps a worse outcome is when the Monsantos of the world lose control of their product, inadvertently or via sabotage, as appears happened in this case.

With rapid advancement of knowledge and expertise in biotechnology, there’s great potential to do good. However, incidents like this underline the fact that no good thing is risk-free. As genetic modification continues, expect more such controversies—and hopefully, in their wake, better safeguards.

http://singularityhub.com/2013/07/02/mon...awsuits-follow/
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/07/2013 18:50

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
There have been plenty of cases where animals just won't touch GM seeds as i guess they have better survival instincts than humans do?



There was a program on GEM the other night called fat, sick and nearly dead, where an overweight sick Aussie guy when across America talking to people (mainly overweight) and the common thread amongst the majority of them was they ate no fruit or vegetables, and they knew that the "food" that they were eating was doing them no good and was killing them and the majority said that they only expected to live to the '50's.

When the guy asked them to try the vegetable juice, they all tried it with trepidation, but the normal response was "oh, it's not for me" he also asked them "if there was something you could do that would add years to your life, like changing your diet, would you?" the general response was "no, it's just too hard"

So, people would rather just eat junk and die early because it is "too hard" to eat healthy?


Exactly, so all of the worry about GM really does pale into insignificance when you take into account the current SAD (Standard American Diet) diet that's consumed by so many westerners. Due to the massive changes in people's dietary habits in recent times and with the permeation of artificial preservatives, it'd be nearly impossible to differentiate between disease brought on by GM food and that of just bad lifestyle choices.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/07/2013 22:56

So why add the extra burden of Genetically modified crops when, really there is no need for them?
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 06:52

First, you need to be able to prove beyond doubt that GM crops themselves are solely responsible for disease and not simply the over consumption of grains themselves.

Secondly, matter which way you swing it, whether the earth is cooling or warming, either the lack of heat or the predicted lack of water will place stress on crops which will make them more prone to disease and insect attack. GM aims to address these matters through different approaches.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 09:12

That may be fine in theory, but in practice it is a completely different thing,GM crops were originally introduced among a huge list of promises,to solve world hunger... has that happened? NO.

GM crops were introduced to reduce the amount of pesticides that were used on crops, has that happened? NO

GM crops were introduced to reduce the amount of herbicides used in crops,has that happened? NO

GM crops were introduced to increase the amount of yield from the crops, has that happened? NO

Disease resistance? NO

Pest resistance? NO

Face it GM crops are already failing, they are responsible for infestations of superweeds across massive area's of the states, they are also susceptible to root rot diseases which they were supposed to be immune to, they still suffer from pest attacks, because the bugs that attack the crops are becoming resistant to the poisons in the GM crops and they are no longer effective, so they are having to resort to even more dangerous poisons to spray on their crops, like agent orange.

Pesticide use was spruiked as it would be massively reduced and again that is far from the case, in fact pesticide use has skyrocketed since the introduction of GM crops.

Farmers can no longer save any seed that they have grown to replant next years crop....they have to buy new,expensive seed every year to replant.

Now, tell me who is REALLY getting the benefits from GM crops, beside the big biotech companies that are selling their patented seeds.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 09:22

EPA to American People: 'Let Them Eat Monsanto's Roundup Ready Cake'


The EPA, whose mission is to "to protect human health and the environment," has approved Monsanto's request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven't already heard, it's now official. Monsanto's request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov. [emphasis added]

Notice above, the proposal includes "Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato," revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic. [emphasis added]

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has 'xenoestrogen' properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA's Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows:

"EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary."

According to this ruthless logic, since the EPA designates itself a higher authority than the independent scientific evidence clearly signaling glyphosate's carcinogenicity (view the toxicological data yourself here), it requires no safety testing. Let the exposed populations eat Roundup Ready cake and fester in an epidemic of cancers, as it turns a self-blinded eye to the problem.

The EPA has just made such a mockery of its own mission statement, which is "to protect human health and the environment," that one wonders why they have not already declared themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

The obvious reason why Monsanto and its 'EPA cheerleading division' successfully raised the tolerances of glyphosate in your food, is because the contamination is getting so bad they had no other choice. Either limits are raised, or Monsanto breaks the law (by contaminating our food and poisoning us beyond the "acceptable level of harm" already determined by the EPA) and the EPA is shown to be completely impotent to enforce anything resembling its mission statement.

But despite Monsanto's latest apparent success, a growing grassroots movement comprised of millions of concerned citizens is defiantly expressing their own form of "glyphosate-resistance," armed with a growing body of published toxicological data linking the glyphosate herbicide to over 30 health problems. This movement is mirrored poetically by the "super weeds" emerging throughout the Roundup Ready monocultured farmland of the world. In both cases, the center of real power is shifting away from Monsanto back to the people who are realizing that unless they retake back control over their food, they will be coerced and poisoned into a form of biological slavery the likes of which this world has never seen before, and if it manifests fully, will likely never recover from.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/epa-american-people-let-them-eat-monsantos-roundup-ready-cake
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 11:46

^---- And it's thanks to argumentative posts like the two above that the debate in the climate change threads was shut down. You shouldn't even pretend to be even handed about this Yasi, you made up your mind a long time ago and now you are trying to prosecute your ideal, or get the thread shut down so as to stifle debate.

Who are you going to call when the world is paralysed after being tied into knots thanks to idealistic fanaticism like yours?

Your arguments are repetitive, tiresome and boring. I hope for everyone's sake that the context that would lend some much needed context to those who's comments are much more pragmatic towards what GM might be able to offer for the welfare of people around the globe. If the 'perfect famine storm' ever eventuated you may even find that GM sourced food would be an acceptable trade off to ensure the survival of yourself and your family.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 11:57

Argumentative posts? What, should everyone agree with you ADU and end discussion there if they don't? IMO, closure of those threads was more to do with the extreme criticism from people who so rudely and continuously attack personally as you just have again with your "idealist fanatacism" comment. No one is forcing to you to read Yasi's posts, you are welcome to use the ignore button if you find them so repetitive, tiresome and boring. I hope for everyone's sake this thread is not closed too because of caustic comments such as yours.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 12:17

Originally Posted By: Andy Double U
^---- And it's thanks to argumentative posts like the two above that the debate in the climate change threads was shut down. You shouldn't even pretend to be even handed about this Yasi, you made up your mind a long time ago and now you are trying to prosecute your ideal, or get the thread shut down so as to stifle debate.

Who are you going to call when the world is paralysed after being tied into knots thanks to idealistic fanaticism like yours?

Your arguments are repetitive, tiresome and boring. I hope for everyone's sake that the context that would lend some much needed context to those who's comments are much more pragmatic towards what GM might be able to offer for the welfare of people around the globe. If the 'perfect famine storm' ever eventuated you may even find that GM sourced food would be an acceptable trade off to ensure the survival of yourself and your family.


Andy, the CC threads were shut down because of the constant personal attacks (like you have just launched) the squabbling, bickering,childish behavior and swearing among other things.

The story above highlights the fact that big companies can basically do whatever they see fit, in order to keep their profits flowing, and their products selling.

There is nothing contained in my post, except the cold hard facts about GM crops, if you cannot see that i suggest you do some further research yourself (on independent site's) on the failings of GM crops.

There has been many stories on the TV where scientists are actually reverting back to "tradition" varieties of seed's due to the fact that the current ones are failing,(even GM crops are failing) because they basically use the same strain.

If the worst come to the worst in a 'perfect famine storm' they will more than likely look to the organic growers to obtain clean untainted seed varieties that have been handed down thru the generations....
Posted by: Andy Double U

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 13:18

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Andy, the CC threads were shut down because of the constant personal attacks (like you have just launched) the squabbling, bickering,childish behavior and swearing among other things.

Well that sounds all well and good but let's face it, it's not the whole truth is it? Your pal CeeBee had a bit to say on this subject in another blog:

Originally Posted By: Cee Bee - Blog.hotwhopper.com
My goal there over the past 16 months was to politely hound and badger the deniers with science until it worked them up into such a lather that the moderators lost all control and the Admin had to step in to bring to whole sorry mess to an end.

The result is the deniers have now lost a mainstream outlet.


Now how is what you are engaging in now any different? You say what you cite is science, it isn't. You say what you cite is fact, it isn't. It's nothing but cherry picked articles that align with your point of view.

As for Jax's accusation that what I said was a personal attack, grow up, it wasn't. If you choose to be offended by it then that is your choice.

Fanaticism - noun wildly excessive or irrational devotion, dedication, or enthusiasm.

Obviously I've picked up on your and Yasi's enthusiasm and dedication to the current subject. I would've thought you'd be happy because I've seen it for what it is! smile Now, if you don't wish to be seen in this light, perhaps you could try presenting a more balanced and less fanatical version of your views. grin Admittedly, I'm not one to hold out for miracles though! lol poke
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 13:53

Andy,

I am not going into any past post from the now defunct CC thread. smile

There are plenty of websites out there that provide a balanced view on GM crops, and there is plenty of scientific data to back it all up, weather you choose to actually look for it and read it is another thing.

My views are my views, but from where i sit i have been there before, using chemicals and chemical fertilizers on my crops, but when you look at it at the end of the day it is me that has to mix the chemicals, me that has to spray them, and me that has to breath them in when i spray, then my family has to ingest them once they are ready, how is that beneficial? So it is me that decides not to use them...

You spray "weeds" and within a few weeks they are back again, so you end up on a chemical spraying merry go round, with no end in sight.

For me it is far easier to just thickly mulch plants, and that suppresses weeds for MUCH longer than spraying, also if there are any weeds that come thru the mulch, it is easier to pull them out..

Mulching also provides much needed organic matter to the soil, where spraying does not contribute anything but chemical buildup in the soil.... smile
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 14:07

GM is about broad scale farming not your backyard vegie patch.
How do you get on top of weed populations in this scenario? mulching is to expensive and not practical so that's out, cultivation bares the soil and leaves it vulnerable to wind evaporation and washaway from heavy rain so that only leaves chemical as a viable option or am I missing something.
Keep in mind margins are very tight and farmers deserve to make a dollar like everyone else.
Not having a go Yasi im just after your opinion.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 14:17

roves, there are plenty of commercial organic farmers out there, and they actually employ people to go around an hand weed crops (rather than paying vast sums of cash to the likes of Monsanto for chemical herbicides.)Depending on the crop also say fruit for example, organic farmers will underplant the tree's with a nitrogen releasing ground cover plant.

Quote:
cultivation bares the soil and leaves it vulnerable to wind evaporation and washaway from heavy rain so that only leaves chemical as a viable option or am I missing something


Like in monoculture, that is what happens when the soil is cultivated, and left bare and the topsoil is either blown away in the wind, or washed away in heavy rain.If it had been sprayed with heavy amounts of chemicals, that can then also be washed off into waterways..

I personally know a certified biodynamic farmer that has 100 acres of "small crops' and he manages the whole plot by himself.
Posted by: Lindsay Knowles

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 14:24

Ok lets keep this one on topic and refrain from baiting or looking to cause arguments.
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 14:43

I think the answer is adopting a different approach to broad scale farming Roves, and utilising more organic rather than mainstream (ie chemical) methods. Here's a link to an article that describes this along with discussion and figures about recent research and is well worth the time to read: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4060

Short excerpt from it:

Quote:

Looking at 77 studies from the temperate areas and tropics, the Michigan team found that greater use of nitrogen-fixing crops in the world's major agricultural regions could result in 58 million metric tons more nitrogen than the amount of synthetic nitrogen currently used every year. Research at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania showed that red clover used as a winter cover in an oat/wheat-corn-soy rotation, with no additional fertilizer inputs, achieved yields comparable to those in conventional control fields. Even in arid and semi-arid tropical regions like East Africa, where water availability is limited between periods of crop production, drought-resistant green manures such as pigeon peas or groundnuts could be used to fix nitrogen. In Washington state, organic wheat growers have matched their non-organic neighbor's wheat yields using the same field pea rotation for nitrogen. In Kenya, farmers using leguminous tree crops have doubled or tripled corn yields as well as suppressing certain stubborn weeds and generating additional animal fodder.
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/07/2013 18:13

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
roves, there are plenty of commercial organic farmers out there, and they actually employ people to go around an hand weed crops (rather than paying vast sums of cash to the likes of Monsanto for chemical herbicides.)Depending on the crop also say fruit for example, organic farmers will underplant the tree's with a nitrogen releasing ground cover plant.

Quote:
cultivation bares the soil and leaves it vulnerable to wind evaporation and washaway from heavy rain so that only leaves chemical as a viable option or am I missing something


Like in monoculture, that is what happens when the soil is cultivated, and left bare and the topsoil is either blown away in the wind, or washed away in heavy rain.If it had been sprayed with heavy amounts of chemicals, that can then also be washed off into waterways..

I personally know a certified biodynamic farmer that has 100 acres of "small crops' and he manages the whole plot by himself.




Me and my wife continuously crop 10,000 acres of wheat each year by ourselves , hand picking weeds is not an option and my neighbour went organic 5years ago and went broke 2years ago, it costs more to farm organically and there is no premium for wheat to do so.
His yields by the 3rd year were half of mine on the same rainfall as his soils became depleted of nutrients even though his fert costs were twice as high using a organic blend which was meant to be the same and he was getting down graded at harvest because weeds also became a huge problem as he couldn't keep them under control.
Im not going to follow in his footsteps that's for sure I guess organic can work in certain situations but don't see it for me.
Jax I will look at the article tonight I have to get to footy training.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/07/2013 09:06

This is the sort of thing that GM crops have lead to ad *some* of the problems associated with them....

Agent Orange chemical in GM war on resistant weeds

A US biotechnology company is set to introduce a controversial new genetically modified corn to help farmers fight resistant weeds.

Dow Agrosciences says its new GM product is based on a chemical that was once a component of the Vietnam war defoliant, Agent Orange.

It is needed they say because so called "superweeds" are now affecting up to 15 million acres of American crops.

Dow argues the new approach is safe and sustainable.

For a farmer like Jeremy Leech who grows corn and soybeans near Humboldt, Nebraska, resistant weeds are a constant threat to his farm and his family.

Last year he spent around $7,500 on chemical sprays to combat the threat to his crops.

The herbicide failed to kill the giant ragweed that had grown on his land, strangling his soybeans and his income. Worse, the pungent pollen from the towering pests exacerbated his eight year-old daughter's asthma.

"When that stuff is pollinating it makes it hard for her to breathe outside and when you live on a farm you know the kids play outside all the time and they love it and when that pollen gets really bad she gets choked up," he says.

Farming revolution
Thousands of farmers across the US now face similar problems with weeds that can withstand powerful herbicides. Scientists say it is because of the success of GM crops that were introduced in the mid 1990s.

Monsanto became a world leader in the field thanks to the introduction of Roundup-ready corn and soybeans. These crops were engineered to be able to survive spraying with glyphosate, a chemical marketed as Roundup.


Jeremy Leech has battled resistant weeds on his Nebraska farm.
Farmers just needed to use this one spray on their fields and it killed all the weeds but left the crops intact. Growers rapidly adopted the new technology as it cut their costs substantially.

"Roundup was the one that was supposed to do wonders," says Jeremy Leech's father, Van.

"And it did for the first few years; anybody could raise clean beans. Obviously over the last few years, bean fields are beginning to look more and more like this," he says, pointing to a field where weeds tower over shrunken crops.

To see how bad the weed problem can get, I travelled to an experimental plot near David City run by the University of Nebraska with Prof Stevan Knezevic.

We stand in a cornfield surrounded by towering green plants. But there is not an ear of corn in sight. The stalks that surround us are Giant Ragweed, one of the "dirty dozen" weeds that have acquired resistance to Roundup.

So powerful have these monster weeds become become that even spraying them with 24 times the recommended dose of Roundup fails to kill them.

These plants suck the light and the life from the crops. Just one resistant weed every 10 square metres can reduce the yields from productive plants by 50%.

"Over the past 15 years I said that if we continued using roundup, roundup roundup, we're going to have a problem - now we have that problem," says Prof Knezevic.

"The reason why we are here is that we all mismanaged this technology."

Back to the future
Recognising the scale of the problem, the biotechnology industry believes that newer more effective forms of GM are the solution. Dow Agrosciences is now seeking US government approval for the Enlist weed control system.

Instead of the crop being resistant to one chemical, it is engineered to resist two. Dow says this is a more effective solution because it allows farmers to mix and match their sprays more effectively, making for a far more sustainable system.



What is causing controversy though is the new trait which makes the crops resistant to a chemical called 2,4-D. Developed by a British team during the war, this powerful weed killer was a component part of Agent Orange, the defoliant used extensively by the US Army during the Vietnam war.

2,4-D is currently utilised as a herbicide in agriculture, though it is used sparingly compared with Roundup. The change here would expand options for farmers to use 2,4-D.

Although it was is one of two chemical ingredients in Agent Orange, the chemical was not implicated in causing the devastating health impacts suffered by many people exposed to the defoliant

Prof Dallas Peterson of Kansas State University who has co-operated with Dow in the past says this makes the chemical very suitable for working in combination with others.

"It is an old herbicide, one of the oldest synthetic herbicides around; we've used it for over 50 years in many different situations and to quite a large degree, and we haven't had many cases of resistance develop yet," he explains.

The US Environmental Protection Agency says that 2,4-D is safe for use in farming. The Department of Agriculture is expected to shortly grant final approval for planting next spring.

But weed scientists are concerned that if farmers are not educated to use the new GM product properly, resistance issues will soon re-appear.

"It will certainly help with weed resistance; it's a new mode of action," says Prof Dallas Peterson.

"But it's not a silver bullet - and if we utilise the technology too extensively and rely on it too exclusively, eventually we will develop resistance."

Back on the farm in southeastern Nebraska, Jeremy Leech is carefully cleaning his combine harvester to make sure he does not transport resistant seeds from one field to the next. He is also sceptical that a new GM alone is the answer.

"To me, it's a short-term fix. I think 2,4-D will work fine, but what I'm afraid is what's going to happen 4-5 years down the road if we keep using it. I think we 'll have the same problems we have now with Roundup."


These giant ragweeds have grown tall despite the application of herbicide
What is emerging from Dow and other biotech companies in this field is the growing acceptance that greater education of farmers and a more comprehensive approach to weed management are crucial to the success of their products.

"When we grow Roundup-ready corn and rotate it with Roundup-ready soybeans the biodiversity is out of the window," says Prof Knezevic.

"It's just two crops, same chemical. We need more biodiversity if the biotech bandwagon is to succeed, like the organic farmers who rotate their crops more."

Ironically, the future of GM may well depend on re-incorporating some of the older skills that the technology once threatened to replace.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/07/2013 22:55

Allergies and GM fears drive Australian 'free-from' food movement

FOODS free of pesticides and genetically modified ingredients are adding to a growing "free-from" shopping list for Australian families.

With 2 per cent of Australian adults and 6 per cent of children having a food allergy, and one in 10 babies born in Australia developing a food allergy in their lifetime, shoppers are seeking out gluten, nut, dairy, sugar and even soy-free products and that net is now spreading wider.

And it's not just providing for those with allergies. While shoppers are seeing through the marketing spin of "fat-free" and "lite" products, fashionable celebrity-endorsed "free-from" diets, including the gluten-free diet followed by Miranda Kerr, and fears about genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food have also prompted food manufacturers to develop products which appeal.

The world's biggest pasta maker, Barilla, will next year launch a gluten-free pasta in Australia.

In Woolworths, the health food category, predominantly driven by free-from products, has grown by 17 per cent year-on-year, while its own-brand Macro range of health products experienced sales growth of 41 per cent growth year-on-year.

Australian-owned Freedom Foods, which is behind such brands as Norganic, Australia's Own Organic and a shareholder in permeate-free a2 Milk, has been testing the US market for 18 months and is about to launch a full-scale push, using Australia's relatively GMO-free status as a marketing tool.

"Nearly 100 per cent of the soy crop and 80 per cent of the corn crop in the US is GM modified," said CEO Michael Bracka who is about to relocate to Los Angeles.

"The Australian food chain is largely GMO free and our view is that, from an industry point a view, a huge competitive advantage.

"Australia produces 60 per cent more food than we can consume. I think it's a real opportunity for our industry."

Mr Bracka will be attending at least a dozen "natural" food expos, including Expo East in Baltimore, which will have 150,000 people through the doors over four days trying products far removed from cardboard-flavoured free-from products of the past.

All of the US-destined products will be manufactured in a 12,000sqm food-grade ­facility in Leeton, NSW, the largest dedicated gluten- and nut-free factory in the Southern Hemisphere.

Boutique producers are also targeting the trend.

Pana Barbounis of Melbourne-based Pana Chocolate is selling an unrefined, raw chocolate bar, free from dairy, refined sugars, vegetable fats and using all organic ingredients.

"People are picking up a block of chocolate and they are looking at the label, and saying, 'I'm about to put this into my mouth. I'm going to find out what ingredients are in it'. We are tapping into that mainstream," said Mr Barbounis who is about to open what he claims is the first vegan, raw organic chocolate shop in Australia.

Dr Andrew Monk, director of Australian Organic said the country needs to position itself as a global leader in the "free-from" value-added market rather than just an exporter of raw product.

"We'd be crazy as a country not to pursue value-added food products," he said.

"The country needs to leverage more on that, rather then being just on the commodity treadmill."

Organic food is, by definition, GM-free but labelling of GMO-free products also needs to improve, he said.

During the last decade all Australian states and territories, except Queensland and the Northern Territory, established GMO-free zones for marketing purposes by legislating a ban on use of GMOs. Tasmania and South Australia are the only states currently maintaining the GMO moratorium.

* Australian Organic Market Report 2012m commissioned by Australian Organic, co-funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd

- 79 per cent of those surveyed perceive organics to be better because it's chemical-free

- 77 per cent because it is additive free

- 64 per cent because it is hormone/antibiotic-free

- 62 per cent because it is GMO free

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/fo...e-1226674840605
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/07/2013 22:59

Genetically-modified Rice Trials in U.S. Contaminate World’s Rice Supply

New evidence has emerged suggesting that the entire global supply of rice may have already been contaminated by unapproved, genetically-modified (GM) rice varieties manufactured by the American multinational corporation Bayer CropScience. A recent entry in the GM Contamination Register explains that between the years of 2006 and 2007, three different varieties of illegal GM rice, none of which have ever been approved for cultivation or consumption anywhere in the world, were identified in more than 30 countries worldwide.

Once again, field trials conducted by Bayer back in the mid-1990s appear to have been the cause of this widespread and irreversible genetic pollution. Though all official field trials of “Frankenrice” supposedly ended in 2002, the three GM rice varieties detected somehow made their way into the general rice supply, which has had a major negative impact on U.S. rice exports. Similar contamination involving both GM wheat and GM flax was also recently discovered in the food supply, and both a result of biotechnology company field trials.

“No GM rice has ever been grown commercially in the U.S. and the source of the contamination is believed to be field trials of herbicide tolerant rice conducted between the mid-1990s and early-2000s by Bayer CropScience (or its precursor companies Aventis CropScience and AgrEvo),” explains the GM Contamination Register entry. “At the time of discovery only one of the contaminating varieties (LLRICE62) had approval for cultivation in the U.S., the other two varieties (LLRICE601 and LLRICE604) had not.”

A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigation into the matter was unable to verify whether or not contamination was the result of cross-pollination, also known as gene flow, or mechanical mixing. But in either case, vagrant GM rice planted in open fields for “testing” purposes definitely escaped, and now American rice farmers are suffering the consequences as the European Union (EU), Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and others have placed strict limitations on GM rice imports. Both Russia and Bulgaria, on the other hand, have completely banned all rice imports from the U.S.

“The contamination episode has also affected seed producers,” adds the report, which is buried deep within the annals of the consumer watchdog group’s website, completely untouched by the mainstream media. “[A]n entire non-GM rice variety Clearfield 131 was banned by U.S. regulators in early 2007 when it was found to be contaminated, costing producer BASF billions of dollars in losses.”
American agriculture, the pale horse of the coming food apocalypse

So as the four horsemen of the apocalypse come galloping in on the world scene in the very near future, you can be sure that the pale horse, which symbolizes famine, was born and bred in the U.S. Yes, the world’s most aggressive and malicious purveyor of GMOs and all the horrors that come with their consumption will be the primary driving force behind the complete destruction of the global food supply via the Trojan Horse that is GMOs.

“Scientific studies confirm that GM contamination is unavoidable once GM crops are grown in a region,” explains the Earth Open Source report GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. “‘Coexistence’ rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops … through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage.”

http://www.blackseagrain.net/about-ukrag...19s-rice-supply
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/07/2013 10:06

This is the sort of propaganda the GM movement use to push their barrow with GM crops, and try to obtain the empathy vote...

(part of the story below, full story at the link)

Quote:
'The environmentalists' opposition to GM is akin to green cultural imperialism.

The green agenda has tried to convince the world – and particularly the developing world – that organic agriculture or "agroecology" is the only acceptable form of food production. This is, of course, the same organic agriculture that for 10,000 years delivered famines and constant food instability. Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug, who led the 1960s plant-science revolution, observed that organic agriculture could only feed 4 billion people and therefore asked which 2 billion people would volunteer to die?

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/antigm-...l#ixzz2YDcIwSRB


So, what they are trying to get across is if we all don't embrace GM crops, then 2 billion people will have to die? what sort of Nonsense is that? and how do they get away with it?

Funny thing is they introduced GM crops around 20+ years ago, on the premise that it would "solve world hunger" has that happened to date? no, it hasn't, people are still going hungry, and as they claim the food supply is still dwindling, so GM crops are obviously not working how they were *meant* to....
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 07/07/2013 12:29

This is what happens when you meddle with plant genes.

GM canola 'nightmare'

GENETICALLY modified canola plants continue to sprout in Tasmanian fields where trials finished more than 15 years ago.

The Tasmanian Government concedes the rogue GM plants could continue to surface for decades, despite spending $250,000 a year since 2001 on eradication, The Mercury reports.

Coal River Valley winemaker Tony Scherer fears the herbicide-resistant plants may have cross-pollinated with related weed species and escaped into the environment.

"It's a nightmare -- you can't contain it,"
Mr Scherer said.

"In the US and Canada it's growing everywhere. You can't put it back in the box."

However, authorities expect the small scale of the 1990s trials counts against Mr Scherer's scenario that herbicide-resistant plants may have cross-pollinated with related weed species.

The Government starts a review of the state's GM crops ban this month.

Trials were abandoned in 2000, soon before the government banned GM crops because of a perceived threat to Tasmania's clean and green brand.

The latest audit of trial sites ticked off by Primary Industries Minister Bryan Green, conducted in March, found rogue GM plants flowering at three of the 57 secret sites where field trials took place in the 1990s.

The March audit states many sites were under pasture when checked and were also expected to have dormant canola seed in the soil.

Sites have been audited three times a year since 2001.

When GM plants, referred to as "volunteers", are found they are burned or poisoned.

Most audits between October 2003 and November 2010 found volunteers at between 10 to 29 sites.

Gene Ethics spokesman Bob Phelps praised the Government for diligence in eradicating volunteers.

"Once it's in the environment it's difficult to get rid of," Mr Phelps said.

He said the trials were contained and small scale, and unlikely to pose a threat to the state's reputation.

Mr Green said the department negotiated management of trial sites to ensure landowners could earn income while eradicating volunteers.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/07/06/575813_grain-and-hay.html
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 07:37

a radical has admitted to planting the gm wheat knowingly
its a shame tactics like this are resotred to even yasi wouldn't stoop that low

and the Tasmanian nightmare plant numbers found can be counted on one hand and is doubt as to wether there gm or not was taken out of context and whole story was published
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 07:44

agent orange is 245t and 24d
245t isn't used anymore anywere but 24d is widely used world wide so naming the chemical agent orange is incorrect

widely used in Australia is 24d
im sure roves uses it amine?

more incorrect journalism
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 08:02

roves theres nothing more would please many on this forum if farmers like you and I went belly up financially ruined by our bad farming practices

they would delight in the fact sad but true
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 09:48

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
a radical has admitted to planting the gm wheat knowingly
its a shame tactics like this are resotred to even yasi wouldn't stoop that low

and the Tasmanian nightmare plant numbers found can be counted on one hand and is doubt as to wether there gm or not was taken out of context and whole story was published


It is funny that,as you stated,
"a radical has admitted to planting the gm wheat knowingly"

How would this happen? when they supposedly destroyed the crops after the trials..... smirk

The fact that GM species (ones that are resistant to traditional poisons) can still cross breed with local weed species is a worrying fact about GM crops, and that is another little factoid about GM crops that they claim would not happen.

Whether it is 1, or a 1,000 plants is not the point, the fact that it has happened and that GM crops have cross bred and unless you have lots more fingers on your hands than most people, the story stated that the plants were found between 10-29 sites.

And as the story also stated,
Quote:
"In the US and Canada it's growing everywhere. You can't put it back in the box."

Is that really something that you would want happening around Australia?

You only have to look back you past incidences where people thought that they "knew better" and introduced Rabbits, foxes, cane toads....

Why do you think area's like the US are suffering so badly now with infestations of super weeds?

Over use and too much reliance on chemicals?

No one wants to see farmers go "belly up" but, the current methods of chemical overuse are taking there toll and are obviously not working how they were originally intended to, and GM crops are certainly not the answer either.
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 23:28

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather


widely used in Australia is 24d
im sure roves uses it amine?




Yep know it well FW I sprayed some out today and yesterday aswell.
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 09/07/2013 23:36

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak


No one wants to see farmers go "belly up" but, the current methods of chemical overuse are taking there toll and are obviously not working how they were originally intended to, and GM crops are certainly not the answer either.



The only alternative is to plow the fields to kill weeds which is frowned upon these days farmers just cant win can they.
ps chemical is the only way to control weeds incrop.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/07/2013 17:15

Local organic farmer crops and lamb bankrupt and sold up by banks a few weeks ago 6000 acres sold for stuff all as no fertilizer or weed control for 8 years went for give away price under half of recent district sales was a shame really his father would be turning in his grave

Married a green save the world type no debts 8 yrs later stuffed the harsh realities of broad acre organic farming
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/07/2013 17:23

That's doesn't surprise me one bit FW just a sad result allround.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/07/2013 22:06

It is not always that simple, clean cut and straight forward...
Chemical based farmers go belly-up also don't they?

There are always options in farming and always new methods to adopt for farming practices, take the cane farmers around here, they always used to rely on copious amounts of chemical fertilizers for their crops, and leave the paddock fallow roughly every 3rd year.

Now, instead of leaving the paddock fallow, they sow a crop of soy beans, which has the benefits of an extra cash crop, adds organic matter to the soil and has the added benefit of adding natural nitrogen to the soil, so it is a win,win for them, they save money on fertilizers and make extra money from the beans.
Posted by: roves

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/07/2013 23:24

Your right farming isn't simple, clean cut or straight forward its damn hard and stressfull and then you have to make a dollar.
In my area Yasi we don't get enough rain to grow a nitrogen fixing crop at levels that benefit the soil and are profitable they are just stunted or die.
My family has been farming this area for over 100 years of which i'm the 4th generation so I think we have it down pat though we are always refining the method and varieties.
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/07/2013 18:01

It's a hard one with legume crops, we use clover, both native stuff and some varieties we introduced for pasture and to help nutrient levels but in order to get a good charge of nitrogen in the soil, it requires the clover to really suck the moisture out of the ground to do it. As Roves said, our area ( I am only a couple of hundred km from roves) we cannot grow summer crops such as soybeans to provide nutrient for the following crop. Modern farming in the dryland areas has turned into more of a moisture management system rather than an old school farming operation. Everything is done with the aim of conserving moisture until you want to use it. I can tell you for sure YS, if we didn't need chemical fertilisers and herbicides etc we would not use them! They cost a fortune to buy and also if it is applied at the wrong time or wrong conditions it is a huge cost for nothing.

In times gone by, weed control was by mechanical means, this meant that the weeds have to start growing in order to be able to kill them, this is not just a waste of moisture but also could also, in the case of a late autumn break like this year, a big waste of time. Weed control without chemicals cannot be done in crop unless hand picking is used and that is not economical, nor practical.

I am trying to use some biological farming principles on some of the family farm. The soil has defiantly improved however I am not cropping it and only running sheep for a couple of months a year on it until it improves enough to see how being put back into full on production goes.

It really stems back to the fact that the stuff we produce is worth far too little. This has forced the "get big or get out" philosophy that most have gone along with. This does not allow the hands on approach that a small farmer can have. The ruthless pursuit of efficiency has meant that if the job can be done quickly and efficiently using chemicals, it will win out every time. If you don't like it, buy organic grain.....if you can find it.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/07/2013 09:59

Originally Posted By: adon
If you don't like it, buy organic grain.....if you can find it.


Actually you might be quite surprised to find that it is not as hard to obtain as you think.... there are plenty of organic grains out there and there are also millers out there that only deal in organic.

The thing i find repulsive is how much good food in this country goes to waste because of cheap imported rubbish from places like China? if it keeps up companies like SPC and Ardmona will be history, you see it on the news everyday, tonnes of perfectly good fruit being dumped back into the paddocks "because they can't sell it"

What sort of farming methods and practices doe's China employ? what sort of dangerous chemicals do China use? and in some cases ones that have been banned for years in other countries.
Do you really want to eat that sort of food?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/07/2013 11:54

Is the tide turning for GM crops?



First India gives Monsanto a run for their ill-gotten money by refusing their patent applications, and now Italy, with the help of three Italian ministries, will try to undo Monsanto. A decree has been signed which will ban Monsanto’s MON810 maize, one of the two genetically modified crops currently legally grown in Europe and sold commercially. The decree is not yet binding as it has to be published in the official gazette, but the public stands behind the three Italian ministers who put forth the document with a resounding 80% against GMO and Monsanto, as evidenced in a public survey.
http://naturalsociety.com/italy-ban-mons.../#ixzz2ZnsJLOFm
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/07/2013 11:58

Monsanto virtually gives up on growing GMO crops in Europe

Monsanto has pretty much given up any hope (at least for now) of selling its genetically engineered seeds for corn, sugar beets, and other crops in Europe, where opposition to GMO food is overwhelming.

Monsanto Co. said Thursday it will largely drop its bid to grow some of its genetically modified crops in Europe.

The world’s largest seed-maker has nine pending applications with the European Commission, the executive body for the European Union. A spokesman said the company plans to withdraw eight of those applications.

The requests “have been going nowhere fast for several years,” said Brandon Mitchener, a spokesman for the St. Louis-based company’s European entity. “There’s no end in sight … due to political obstructionism.”

The European Union’s stubborn resistance to transgenic crops stands in stark contrast to the welcome mat rolled out by American lawmakers for agro-giants and their most controversial products. From the BBC:

The company said it would now concentrate on growing its conventional seeds business in Europe.

It will also look to get EU approval to import its genetically modified crop varieties from the US and South America into Europe.

In 2012, Germany’s BASF halted the development of genetically modified crops in Europe and moved its European research operations in this area to the US.

http://grist.org/news/monsanto-virtually-gives-up-on-growing-gmo-crops-in-europe/
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 24/07/2013 20:29

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/...ent-narcissism/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 25/07/2013 08:58

DEPUTY PREMIER BACKS GMO BAN

Tasmanian farmers are concerned that the Government has made up its mind on the outcome of a GMO ban review before it has started.

The Deputy Premier, Bryan Green, has spoken out against lifting the ban on genetically modified organisms.

The Government has released the terms of reference a review of the state's moratorium on GMOs in agriculture.

Mr Green believes the ban should be continued.

"The Government believes that the moratorium on the use of GMOs in primary industries has served Tasmania well and from that perspective is should be continued," he said.

"Being GMO free is a great fit with the Tasmanian brand."

Mr Green's comments have surprised Jan Davis from the Farmers and Graziers' Association.

"I will be very surprised if the Government were to put itself in the position of going into a review knowing what it's position coming out is going to be," she said.

"That would be at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest."

The review starts next month and will investigate market advantages for and against the use of gene technology.

The existing moratorium will expire in November next year.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/late...dification-ban/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 25/07/2013 09:01


Hundreds gather for Hawai'i Island proposed GMO bill ban hearing

KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII (HawaiiNewsNow) -
So many people signed up to testify on a GMO bill ban in Hawai'i County, it was impossible to hear from them all. Opponents and advocates will both have to return Wednesday if they want to address the City Council.

GMO or genetically modified organisms and their use in genetically modified foods have been a topic of hotly contested debate across the state in recent months. Currently, Hawai'i Island is the only county in the state that doesn't have biotech farms growing seed.

The bill that's up for discussion would maintain that by restricting the introduction of new GMO crops.
Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille introduced Bill 79, which would prevent farmers from planting any genetically modified crops not already grown on the island.

"This is a tipping point and it's a choice of which direction this island is going to go in," said Wille by phone during a brief break in today's marathon public testimony hearing. "We're really the only Hawai'i island that hasn't been effectively taken over by the GMO biotech industry corporations. It would certainly be nice to have one island in this state that's pro-natural farming."

By 9 a.m. city council members already faced over 12 hours of testimony and a stack about a foot high of more than 200 documents that had been submitted, along with YouTube videos. By Noon, more than 350 people had signed up to voice their opinion. There was so much interest in today's public hearing, four additional satellite locations in Hilo, Waimea, Pahoa and Oceanview were opened to accommodate the overflow expected at the main City Council site in Kona.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/louisiana-news/...ill-ban-hearing
Posted by: Petros

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 26/07/2013 20:58

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak

Hundreds gather for Hawai'i Island proposed GMO bill ban hearing

KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII (HawaiiNewsNow) -
So many people signed up to testify on a GMO bill ban in Hawai'i County, it was impossible to hear from them all. Opponents and advocates will both have to return Wednesday if they want to address the City Council.

GMO or genetically modified organisms and their use in genetically modified foods have been a topic of hotly contested debate across the state in recent months. Currently, Hawai'i Island is the only county in the state that doesn't have biotech farms growing seed.

The bill that's up for discussion would maintain that by restricting the introduction of new GMO crops.
Kohala Councilwoman Margaret Wille introduced Bill 79, which would prevent farmers from planting any genetically modified crops not already grown on the island.

"This is a tipping point and it's a choice of which direction this island is going to go in," said Wille by phone during a brief break in today's marathon public testimony hearing. "We're really the only Hawai'i island that hasn't been effectively taken over by the GMO biotech industry corporations. It would certainly be nice to have one island in this state that's pro-natural farming."

By 9 a.m. city council members already faced over 12 hours of testimony and a stack about a foot high of more than 200 documents that had been submitted, along with YouTube videos. By Noon, more than 350 people had signed up to voice their opinion. There was so much interest in today's public hearing, four additional satellite locations in Hilo, Waimea, Pahoa and Oceanview were opened to accommodate the overflow expected at the main City Council site in Kona.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/louisiana-news/...ill-ban-hearing


YS - is this the start of another flood of cut/pastes about to be poured on primary producer's - variant: farmers?

I give this thread 3 months before it too gets shut down.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 26/07/2013 21:51

Why would it get shut down? i have been contributing to this thread long before the "other" threads and this is still going, and i am still here.... wink

That is what this thread is all about, food production, farming and so on, if you are wanting to join in the thread you are more than welcome to do so smile
Posted by: Brett Guy

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 02:29

It won't get shut down. There is no one here that wants to stop debate as was the case with certain other threads. YS is free to have his say as should be the case.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 14:09

Thanks brett.

The Scary Truth About Genetically Engineered Foods

It's one of the buzziest acronyms in the current health and wellness conversation, and while you've been hearing about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for a while, chances are you've been eating them, too. As of this year, 90 percent of all corn and 93 percent of all soybeans planted in the U.S. are genetically engineered crops.


Although the federal government and plenty of scientists agree that genetically modified foods are completely safe, critics are suspicious. They cite hotly debated animal studies that have linked a GMO-laden food supply to tumors in rats, stomach inflammation in pigs, and infertility in mice. (Did we mention that genetically modified food is banned in most of Europe?) Complicating matters even further, anti-GMO advocates balk at the biotech industry's involvement in the debate and in the research, which only fuels suspicions of the overall safety of GMO foods.


"Inserting new genes into plants does more than affect the properties of plants. It can affect our immune cells in unpredictable ways" says Dr. Terry Wahls, the author of Minding My Mitochondria. "What we need are long-form studies across multiple generations, and those just don't exist yet." Without the research, some say that flooding our food supply with GMOs is a dangerous risk.

While the experts are busy duking it out, the rest of us are left with a singular quandary: What's for dinner? Without sweeping labeling regulations, some big-name brands are getting on board with voluntary labeling programs. For example, Chipotle recently began calling out menu items containing genetically engineered ingredients on its website, and Whole Foods vowed to label all genetically modified foods sold in stores by 2018. Plus, a handful of states, including Maine and Vermont, are considering labeling laws along the lines of California's Prop 37, which was shot down by state voters last year.
In the meantime, try these tips from Wahls for avoiding GMOs in your diet.
1. Emphasize organic.
Because organic foods aren't sprayed with pesticides, they don't have to be engineered to be pesticide-resistant. Foods labeled "100% organic" are made without genetically modified ingredients.
2. Know what your meat eats.
When it comes to completely cutting out GMOs, consider your dinner's dinner: Cows, chickens, pigs, and even farmed fish often exist on a diet of genetically modified food, so organic, grass-fed meat is always the safest bet.
3. Ask for heirloom.
Smaller farms are unlikely to grow genetically modified crops, another reason that the local farmers' market is a great place to shop. Look for heirloom produce: By definition, heirloom plants are grown from seeds that have been passed down from generation to generation without change, so it's the kind of produce your grandmother ate (read: GMO-free).
4. Be picky about packaged.
The top two genetically engineered crops-corn and soy-also happen to be two of the most ubiquitous ingredients on grocery-store shelves. Read labels for things like soy lecithin and corn
More from DETAILS: http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/av...-204400563.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 20:49

Did anyone see the story on 4 corners about 2-4-D?
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 21:40

Yes, I did. Terrible stuff. I've avoided buying 2 4 D because I had some residual memory that it was best avoided. However, the discovery that they found significant amounts of 2.4 5 T in that and other herbicides was a huge worry. Might be in the poisons I have downstairs!

At what point are we going to accept that we cannot trust stuff from China, and start treating it as untrustworthy? If they're contaminating herbicides with a banned poison, can you just imagine what's in the food we import from there?
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 22:03

Watched it as well. Thought I had a pretty good grip on where farming was at with its use of chemicals but was still blown away by that program. Just terrible to see the results of the contamination - and to see how useless the regulator was. All this crap coming in from China and they do NO testing. Just crazy. All the more reason to grow your own or go chem free. Assuming you can find chem free not impacted by the drift frown
Posted by: Seabreeze

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 27/07/2013 22:25

I thought the vast majority of fresh fruit and vegies at supermarkets was Australian-grown?
Unless we're talking about the processed/packaged foods on the shelves? smile
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/07/2013 10:12

As I have pointed out several times before your first port of call for all food regulations is FSANZ http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

If you detect a problem that you think they may not be aware of contact them as well.

The Saltmatters Group (low sodium diet group that my wife has to follow) I am a member of have contacted them on numerous occasions about incorrectly labelled imported foods and they have acted on every occasion to something as insignificant (to most people at least) about the stated amounts of sodium chloride in foods being incorrectly quoted. i.e. 0,1G instead of the Australian labelling standard of 100mg per 100g or stating that it was 1g when it was a whopping 7.9g (basically as salty as sea water) which for certain people can cause heart attacks.

There are any number of independent testing companies that for $37.50 you can submit a sample of the foods you suspect of being contaminated and they will do a chemical breakdown and produce a report that is of a standard that it will be accepted in a court of law. It takes about 5 days in Sydney, for example, to get the report completed.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/07/2013 10:29

Originally Posted By: Seabreeze
I thought the vast majority of fresh fruit and vegies at supermarkets was Australian-grown?
Unless we're talking about the processed/packaged foods on the shelves? smile


The bulk of Fresh food is still grown in Australia, but you will notice if you look that more and more fresh food items on the shelves are imported, Garlic was once purely Australian grown, but year after year cheap Chinese garlics replaced all the Australian Garlic and eventually there was no more grown in Australia.

That has changed slightly now with more garlic being grown in Aust, but again it is hard for it to compete against the cheap irradiated crap that comes from China.

The way things are going though it won't be long before nearly everything is imported from overseas, you see it on the news everyday where farmers are dumping tonnes of fresh fruit and even vegetables back into the paddock, because they cannot sell it.

Every year more and more farmers walk off the land and every year more land is sold to places like china,which is ironic when you think of it.......the Chinese are buying up Australian land so they can maintain their own "food security" (grow food here and send it back to china to feed their own population...)yet year after year more companies are looking to places like China to grow food for them nerd it is just pure madness!
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/07/2013 14:46

That 4Corners episode is still available to watch on ABC iview if anyone is interested - http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/40991
Or you can watch it or read the transcript here - http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/22/3806111.htm

The interview with Kim Chance made me so angry, I hate to think how the families of the dead and dying men reacted to it:


Quote:
JANINE COHEN: In 2001 occupational work specialist Dr Andrew Harper was asked to investigate if the men's illnesses were linked to chemical exposure.

JANINE COHEN: Dr Harper says the government's Agriculture Protection Board repeatedly failed in its duty of care.

DR ANDREW HARPER, OCCUPATIONAL WORK SPECIALIST: One, they were not trained. Two, there wasn't an induction program. The information about the risk was not given to them, the supervision was not there and they were not given, in the main, safety equipment. So they simply went out in shorts and shirts and thongs, and that was it. And there wasn't any systematic washing after exposure. So they were just completely exposed. And the authorities didn't take a responsible stand to in fact correct the situation.

JANINE COHEN: Dr Harper recommended all those who were sick be considered for compensation.

DR ANDREW HARPER: I recommended that compensation be considered as I felt there had been a disservice done to these people and it wasn't only manifest in a specific illness, which was difficult to define. It was manifest through the way they were treated and through the impact that that had on their lives and on their feelings of alienation.

JANINE COHEN: But the Western Australian Labor Government responded to Dr Harper's recommendation by calling for another report.

DR ANDREW HARPER: Asking for a scientific study created a distraction from the content of my report.

JANINE COHEN: That the men be compensated?

DR ANDREW HARPER: That the men be compensated. It diverted attention away from all of the injustices of the whole program. It diverted attention away from the suffering that these people had and it diverted attention away from the moral issues that the whole thing exemplifies.

JANINE COHEN: Former Agriculture Minister Kim Chance commissioned the new report.

KIM CHANCE, FORMER WA AGRICULTURE MINISTER: Harper's report took us a long way because we began from a situation where we were trying to uncover the results of an event that occurred 20 years before. Harper's report allowed us to tie those events together. He, he said "look, it looks like there's a cause and effect issue here."

JANINE COHEN: He was a lot stronger than that. He recommended that you consider compensation for all those men.

KIM CHANCE: Yes...

JANINE COHEN: He found a failure of duty of care...

KIM CHANCE: Yes...

JANINE COHEN: By various governments.

KIM CHANCE: Yes...

JANINE COHEN: He found that there was no protective clothing, that these...

KIM CHANCE: Yes...

JANINE COHEN: Chemicals were suspected of being incredibly toxic...

KIM CHANCE: Mmm...

JANINE COHEN: And no training. Why did you need statistics to compensate the men when you had all that before you?

KIM CHANCE: Oh because our means of compensation, ah, is, is the WorkSafe principles or the WorkCover principles, that's the only means we have of compensating a former government worker.

EUGENE MCMAHON, MR HUNTER'S BROTHER: I'd like to get a jar of that poison and pour it down some of those politician's mouths. Let them see how they feel about it.

JANINE COHEN: The new report recommended only men with cancer be eligible for compensation. Ten years later only eight men have received workers compensation.

KIM CHANCE: To effect what Dr Harper wanted us to do required a change in the law.

JANINE COHEN: Well why didn't you change the law?

KIM CHANCE: Well that that's a matter for the whole of government to deal with, that's way beyond the authority of the Minister for Agriculture.

JANINE COHEN: Dr Randolph Spargo said the men were actually poisoned.

KIM CHANCE: Yes they were, they were. And they were told that the chemical that they were using couldn't possibly hurt them.

JANINE COHEN: In fact they were told it was so safe they could drink it...

KIM CHANCE: They could drink it.

JANINE COHEN: I mean given all that, do you now, all these years, later find it hard to reconcile that they were never compensated, the great bulk of those men who got sick?

KIM CHANCE: Yes. Yes. And, and indeed, ah, I'll go further than that. I think Dr Harper's recommendation was the right recommendation.


Clearly his job was to avoid acknowledging the truth in damning information about the government and to rock as few boats as possible during his long ride to a fat taxpayer funded pension. Oh, and to remain smug throughout any interview that blatantly reveals this shocking lack of accountability politicians enjoy. Disgusting!
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/07/2013 19:44

The problem here is not whether it was safe or not but the claims process that they have to go through to prove their INDIVIDUAL cases.

I saw and wanted to punch the bastard through my TV screen.
But then I realised something.
He doesn't give a rats as he isn't directly responsible. He wasn't on the ground ordering them to use it now was he? Quiet easy for him distance himself from the issue as he isn't directly involved in any decision that will be made against or for the departments concerned. The money will not be coming out of his own pocket, he can't be sued and as such he has zero interest in anything except protecting his governments position.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 28/07/2013 21:37

And this is the sort of situation where overuse of chemicals and GM crops have led to....having to resort to even more deadly chemical just to fight weeds that have now become resistant to all the traditional chemicals.Again who are behind it all? Monsanto? Dow? do you think they care? do you think they will lose sleep if people die? no they won't, they will only lose sleep when their profits dip! shocked and the only way for that to happen is to stop the use and abuse of all of these chemicals!

GM crops are pushing that envelope even further because the chemicals that they have overused on their crops (and as they claimed that chemical use would decreases...ha! what a lot of baloney that was...) has led them to use the "agent orange" type chemicals on their new varieties of GM crops..... What next? what happens when those chemical then start to fail? what sort of chemicals will they then have to resort to?
Posted by: ant

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/07/2013 00:05

Actually, a surprising amount of our fresh stuff is imported from China, read the labels. and way, waaaay too much is in our frozen and tinned food. try finding tinned mushrooms that aren't from China! Good luck with that. Also, any food labelled as coming from NZ may well be from China, as the latest rort is to bring food in from there, so it can be labelled as being from NZ, when it's not.

My mother did a horticultural tour of China back in 1978, and I will never eat anything grown there if I can help it. She's a farmer, and knew what she was seeing.

The worst person on that 4 Corners episode I thought was that bloody awful woman who was the CEO of the so-called safeguards authority, APMVA or somesuch, never heard of them. Useless! What do they do? Nothing.
Posted by: CaptainCirrus

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/07/2013 08:21

I used to sit on the tractor as a child and watch while my father sprayed the chemical on the weeds, I am 35 years old, and have had cancer and also have a terrible autoimmune disease, that I 'guarantee' came from that crap, I am a 4th generation farmer that has transitioned our farm, back to holisitic farming practices, never to spray any chemical on our small 100 acre farm again, now we manage weeds, we dont poison them. To import food into this country is a disgrace, to import food into this country tainted with poison is an abomination.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/07/2013 08:52

Wow, so sorry to hear that story. Would be gutting for your father as well I should think if he is still around? As dads we do the best for our kids and to find out later that what we thought was harmless fun was actually doing our kids so much potential damage would be heartbreaking. Totally agree about the disgrace / abomination. Just makes no sense whatsoever. Need to get some pride back into supporting our own country - and realise that paying a few less cents at the counter now can mean a lot more cost in sickness (and a financially sick country) down the line.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/07/2013 09:50

The ones at the top of this food debacle chain are Coles and Woolies, they are the ones who are screwing farmers to the wall, basically trying to get them to sell their produce at less than the cost of production (like they did to the dairy farmers up in the Atherton tablelands when their contracts came up for renewal a year or so ago.

Basically the duopoly want farmers to sell for as low as the can so coles and Wollies look like the good guys by offering "super low prices" but in reality they are making massive profits and the farmers are getting screwed!

You only have to look at Coles and Wollies now that they have "Locked down low prices" or "Down down prices are down" how did they achieve that? well in numerous ways, one was to slowly bump prices up of everything even before they started "lowering prices", the second was to increase prices much higher on items that are not so popular or don't have such a great turn over, (i have seen items in woolies like bread flour ( not a common item) and it was $3-4 dearer in Wollies that it was in IGA, rechargeable batteries in Wollies are $4-5 dearer than K mart.... They then claim to have "put their prices down" but in reality it is still dearer than when they started.

Another way was to source more and more of the processed food from overseas, just have a look on the back of packets to see where food is sourced from now days!, China,India,South Africa,Pakistan,Thailand to name a few, all area's where labour is cheap and god knows what their farming methods are like!

like i have said many times before, people need to support the independents, farmers market, local markets, road side stalls,they are the ones that need your money, not Coles or Woolies, they are big multinational companies that make enough money, and eventually they will be the only 2 supermarket chains left.

Or better still grow your own food! know where your food comes from,know your food is picked fresh, and not 2-4 weeks old before you have even bought it, know you walked out the back and picked your own fresh veggies, not that they have come halfway across australia, or the globe for that matter, show your kids where food comes from and how it is grown (how much pride do kids have when they plant something watch it grow and then get to harvest the fruits of their labour? it is priceless and gives them good knowledge to support themselves into the future smile ) The best thing about growing your own food? is knowing what REAL fresh food tastes like, not like that bland,rock hard, tasteless crap that they sell you in supermarkets smirk

Think back 20 odd years ago, at all the different supermarket chains that were once around, SSW,Franklins,Jewel to name a few are now all gone...
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 29/07/2013 11:05

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
Totally agree about the disgrace / abomination. Just makes no sense whatsoever. Need to get some pride back into supporting our own country - and realise that paying a few less cents at the counter now can mean a lot more cost in sickness (and a financially sick country) down the line.


That is the thing that always get's me, people will always put the pursuit of the alluvial dollar ahead of their health smirk umm hello? if you do not have your health, then you are not able to make all the beloved money that you so desperately seek!
(that comment is not directed at you Bello boy, just the shortsighted population in general)
No wonder the sickness industry is thriving, because then people can go to a doctor to get a pill to mask all of their symptoms, all of which is false economy really, because sooner or later it will all catch up with them, even those that claim they have been exposed to chemicals all of their lives, used to wear DDT as an aftershave to repel mozzies sooner or later it catches up to them in a myriad of health related symptoms, that they choose to blame on "something else"

I applaud those that have the vision to change their ways, and seek an alternative path to the chemical overuse and abuse that is todays society ( I want it! i have to have it now!! everything has to be here and now, hard and fast....) going chemical free is not as hard as people would kend you to believe.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 30/07/2013 10:44

This is the end result of overuses of chemicals, companies like Dow and Monsanto then genetically modify crops to suit these more dangerous poisons, so not only is 2-4-D sprayed directly onto the food that you will consume (and in many cases it could be sprayed 3 or more times during the crops life) the 2-4-d poison gene is embedded directly into the crop itself so no matter what you do, it cannot be washed off or removed from the food that you consume.

Agent Orange Ready Corn

In the 15 years since herbicide-resistant crops were first introduced, weeds already have become resistant to herbicides affiliated with genetically engineered crops. In particular, application of Monsanto’s Roundup has spawned glyphosate-resistant weeds, a problem that is driving farmers to apply older, more toxic herbicides and to reduce conservation tilling to combat weeds. Now, to treat the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds, biotechnology companies are simply creating crops resistant to a variety of chemicals.

Dow AgroScience’s variety of corn up for USDA approval, DAS-40278-9, is resistant to ACCase inhibitor herbicides (including quizalofop, which is not registered for use on corn) as well as 2,4-D. The chemical 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) once made up half of the herbicide mix known as Agent Orange. Corn with 2,4-D resistance could be dangerous to eat because a metabolite of 2,4-D is known to cause skin sores, liver damage and sometimes death in animals. 2,4-D is a potential endocrine disruptor and can affect development. Rats exposed to 2,4-D exhibited depressed thyroid hormone levels, which can affect normal metabolism and brain functioning. Studies found that men who applied 2,4-D had lower sperm counts and more sperm abnormalities than those unexposed to the herbicide.

Not only is 2,4-D dangerous for human health, but it also spurs weed resistance. According to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, there have been 29 weeds found to be resistant to 2,4-D’s family of synthetic auxin herbicides. It is only a matter of time before Dow stacks this variety with glyphosate-resistance, which could lead to situations where Roundup and 2,4-D are sprayed on the same crop.

The chemical treadmill model cannot be continued indefinitely. Weed resistance to these chemicals will continue to abound and the application of more noxious herbicides will increase exponentially. This new corn variety is not only unsafe and inefficient, but it is a completely unsustainable solution to the broader problem of high-input production agriculture and associated environmental pressures.

Unsafe to Eat
Although FDA considers Dow’s 2,4-D corn, “as safe as conventional corn varieties…and not materially different” from corn currently grown and marketed in the United States, the FDA’s Biotechnology Consultation Note for 2,4-D-resistant corn lists several amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that differed from conventional corn and were statistically significant, including glutamic acid, oleic acid, vitamin C and zinc.A description of differences without data showing that these differences are “safe” is inadequate, especially when scientists from the French National Institute for Agricultural Research suggest that “following 2,4-D treatment, 2,4-D tolerant plants may not be acceptable for human consumption.”

Harmful for the Environment
On February 23, 2012, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to respond to a 2008 petition to cancel registration of 2,4-D, citing its common use despite links to cancer, cell damage, reproductive problems and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. With the approval of 2,4-D resistant corn, NRDC claims that use of 2,4-D could grow 50-fold.

Aside from its harmful endocrine and carcinogenic effects, 2,4-D is a very volatile herbicide, which can easily drift onto nearby crops, vegetables and flowers. In fact, a comparative risk assessment found that 2,4-D was 400 times more likely to cause non-target plant injury than glyphosate (also known as Roundup, the herbicide many currently used GE crops are engineered to survive.) In an Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) survey on pesticide drift, 2,4-D was the herbicide most commonly involved in drift occurrences. The drift potential of 2,4-D is a concern for ecosystems containing sensitive organisms since the EPA’s toxicity research found 2,4-D to be “very highly toxic to slightly toxic to freshwater and marine invertebrates.”

The USDA claims that planting 2,4-D crops and using more 2,4-D will not adversely impact the listed endangered species or their critical habitats, when in fact, it certainly will. In 2009, the EPA issued a determination on the risks of 2,4-D use to the California Red-legged Frog and the Alameda Whipsnake and concluded that 2,4-D is likely to adversely affect and modify the designated critical habitat of both species.Additionally, in March 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) released its Draft Biological Opinions and concluded that, “the proposed registration of pesticides containing 2,4-D…are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more of the 28 endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids and 2,4-D are likely to adversely modify or destroy the designated critical habitat for one or more of the 28 threatened and endangered salmonids.”

All of the human safety and environmental risks associated with 2,4-D use beg the question—why approve 2,4-D ready corn? The answer: Dow expects to reap in $1.5 billion in extra profit in 2013 from 2,4-resistant corn sales alone.

The dangers of 2,4-D can no longer be neglected—The USDA should not approve Dow’s 2,4-D resistant corn and EPA should ban the use of 2,4-D in the United States.

The good news? In May 2013, the USDA announced that it would be doing environmental impact statements for crops tolerant to 2,4-D and dicamba, a related herbicide. This more rigorous review of the chemicals is good news and shows that the USDA can be pressured to do the right thing if enough people speak up.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/24-d-corn/
Posted by: Petros

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 30/07/2013 19:48

I reckon most Australians are biased to purchase their fresh food from Australian grown suppliers. The $ difference makes it seductive to go for the cheaper produce.

At the moment, most Australians have only the "right thing to do" motivation to select our home grown produce.

The fact that what we are buying may be contaminated by sub-standard (and possibly poorly regulated) agricultural practices overseas, in my opinion is simply not effectively communicated to the minions like me.

Us minions trust what our big supermarkets put on the shelves because this is, well, Australia, its all good - isnt it?
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 01/08/2013 09:15

We could go down the road of the EU and start putting protections in place for Australian farmers by way of subsidies and placing hikes on import duties etc and then end up like Brussels where it is actually more profitable for farmers to not grow a single crop and get a government hand out to stop gluts of dairy etc.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 01/08/2013 12:42

Originally Posted By: Petros
I reckon most Australians are biased to purchase their fresh food from Australian grown suppliers. The $ difference makes it seductive to go for the cheaper produce.

At the moment, most Australians have only the "right thing to do" motivation to select our home grown produce.

The fact that what we are buying may be contaminated by sub-standard (and possibly poorly regulated) agricultural practices overseas, in my opinion is simply not effectively communicated to the minions like me.

Us minions trust what our big supermarkets put on the shelves because this is, well, Australia, its all good - isnt it?


As with everything in life cheaper does not always mean better, take places like K mart with their new low super duper prices smirk you could buy an item there for say $10.00 a few years ago,now the same item may only cost you $2 or 3.00, but hey it will only last you a month if you are lucky! but hey what the hell, it is only $2-3.00 so let's not bother taking it back for refund or replacement let's just buy a new one! so by the end of the year if you keep buying replacements.... you new cheaper item will cost you a lot more in the long run!

It's the same with food, you put cheaper pesticide,herbicide (and if it comes from China it is probably grown in human waste... among other things) and in some cases chemicals that have been banned in this country for years, you put that sort of food into your body, sure it may be "cheap" now but in the long run your health will suffer and that will cost you more with doctors bills, tests, operations, medications for the rest of your life.....

You trust supermarkets? why? you think that they are going to do the best by you? do you really think they care where the food comes from, or what it is grown in? no, the don't they only care about making as much money as they can, bumping off as many of the smaller players as they can, so they can completely dominate the market.

If you want to do some research on food start with farmed Bassa that comes from thailand, part of the process involves enclosed areas, human waste, and algal blooms that said human waste creates, which the fish then eat... and then who eats the fish once they have been imported into Australia? shocked
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 02/08/2013 07:22

YS that is a strange article, for a start 2-4d can be used in crop on corn as 2-4d is a broadleaf selective herbicide. GM not needed there. GM is mostly used so that an effective knockdown chemical(roundup)can be used in a growing crop. By the way agent orange and 2-4d are not the same, that is an attention seeking headline.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 02/08/2013 08:51

andon, they have designed the GM crop to be directly sprayed with 2-4-d in exactly the same way that their "Roundup Ready" GM version is designed to have the whole crop sprayed with roundup and it does not kill the crop (among other things...)

They are now having to resort to using 2-4-d and genetically modified 2-4-d resistant crops due to the simple fact that "roundup" has been so overused that it is no longer effective in killing weeds as they are now resistant.

By the way 2-4-d is half of the chemical composition that they used to make agent Orange..
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 02/08/2013 13:44

adon, here's a link for you to ABC's 4Corners story on 2-4-D, it aired less than two weeks ago. If you don't want to watch the video, you can still read the transcript.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/22/3806111.htm.

Yasi, funny that you used K-Mart as an example of cheap rubbish a couple of posts back in a discussion about supermarkets. You do realise that K-Mart, Target, Officeworks and Bunnings are all owned by Wesfarmers, which also owns Coles. They also have their finger in pies that include fuel, rail, chemicals and fertilisers, insurance, coal mines, alcohol, and of course, gambling. There's probably more, that's just off the top of my head. (Between them Coles and Woolworths own 15,000 pokie machines - that's more than if you lumped the top five Las Vegas casinos together apparently). And 8 out of every 10 Aussie supermarket dollars spent end up in their tills. We are the only country in the world that has allowed such a radical market imbalance to happen.

Wesfarmers, sounds like such a friendly community-based kind of name for a company.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 02/08/2013 14:06

I know, if you look at the tangled web of the "duopoly" it goes very deep, Woolies have launched "Masters hardware" to take on Bunnings, so another nail in the coffin for the smaller retailers, woolies also owns Big W, Dan murphy (and other bottle shop brands, i think as do Coles)

If it keeps up this way it may end up that Coles and Wollies will own nearly everything in oz smirk like Monsanto trying to take over the food production side of things.

I bought a few tubes for the kids bikes at Kmart a while ago, it was only 2 bucks each, put one tube in one of the kids tyres, pumped it up..bang it exploded when i pushed down on it to see how much air was in it..... put another in....that one lasted 2 weeks before the same thing happened smirk so needless to say both of them got marched straight back to K mart for a refund, i don't care if it is only $4.00 that is not the point, they should not sell people cheap junk and just expect that they will wear it and go "oh well it was only $2.00 i will just buy another" because if they went to a bike shop it might cost them $6-8 for a tube, but at least that one will last for much,much longer.

Myers is also part of coles...
Posted by: Jax

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/08/2013 02:22

Ah, yes of course, how did I miss Myers.

So, grain growers are not happy about an impending deal with US investor, ADM.

"THE Federal Government appears to be leaning towards approval of the $3.4 billion sale of GrainCorp to Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)."
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/07/31/578365_grain-and-hay.html


"Our members are concerned that ADM's history in other nations shows cause for concern about how it will impact competition if it was to control 80 per cent of grain-handling facilities in eastern Australia"

However, not to worry, because:

"GrainCorp chief executive Alison Watkins ... said she had always found her dealings with ADM executives "very professional".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business...3-1226681635768

Well, that's nice. And just look at the company they keep.

"The Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy (AAFE) is a lobby group that was launched in July 2008 to promote crop-based biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels...The group comprises
the grain processor and biofuels producer Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the GM seeds and chemical companies Monsanto and DuPont, the manufacturer of farm equipment Deere & Company, and
the corporate-funded lobbying organisation the Renewable Fuels Association"
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Alliance_for_Abundant_Food_and_Energy

AAFE seems to have been short-lived judging by a google search showing nothing after 2009. Hardly surprising I guess: on one hand they're selling the concept of abundant food being used to supply fuel for transport in the West; on the other hand one of their partners is frantically convincing the planet of an impending food shortage, and just as frantically advising that they will solve the problem with GMO crops.

Surprised their PR team missed that one...But anyway, there's a link between Monsanto and ADM. How surprising.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/08/2013 10:19

Some of the 24d comments on here basically are uniformed and actually quite wrong but there's no point trying to explain how why and were it is used
There are zero 24d gm crops
And its never used on crops with product attached be it fruit grain corn reaching maturity there are protocols to follow
I know this will all get dismissed as I'm a farmer who actually uses the stuff unlike most on here who's agricultural experience is cut and paste from internet
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/08/2013 11:12

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather

There are zero 24d gm crops
And its never used on crops with product attached be it fruit grain corn reaching maturity there are protocols to follow
I know this will all get dismissed as I'm a farmer who actually uses the stuff unlike most on here who's agricultural experience is cut and paste from internet


There are zero GM crops smirk

Enlist E3™ Soybeans Approved in Canada
The Enlist E3 trait stack confers tolerance to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate. It is an innovative molecular stack that brings all three herbicide tolerances via a single transgenic event, presenting a unique advantage for customers of Dow AgroSciences, MS Technologies, and future licensees. Because the Enlist E3 trait is a single genetic event, breeding efforts can quickly advance superior performing soybean seeds for farmers.

Enlist corn and Enlist soybean traits were approved in October 2012 in Canada for food, feed, and environmental release and Enlist Duo™ herbicide was approved in Canada in May 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/in-dow-agrosciences-idUSnBw195125a+100+BSW20130619

Dow AgroSciences Receives First Approval for Enlist Corn and Enlist Soybeans
Traits Approved in Canada, Validates Robust Science Package, Will Help Farmers with Problem Weeds
INDIANAPOLIS - October 19, 2012


This will allow for the first-ever cultivation of the traits, which provide tolerance to 2,4-D herbicide, giving Canadian farmers options and advanced technology for dealing with hard-to-control and resistant weeds in both crops. The Enlist corn and Enlist soybean traits have undergone evaluation by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada (HC), and have been approved for food, feed, and environmental release. Approvals are also being sought in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.
http://www.dow.com/news/corporate/2012/20121019a.htm

Bad idea: New GE seeds
Dow Chemical Company is asking USDA to approve its new “2,4-D resistant” corn and soy seed, two in the pipeline of next generation herbicide-tolerant crops that pesticide/biotech corporations are planning to bring to market in the coming years.
http://www.panna.org/current-campaigns/24D

I can "cut and paste" more for you if you like? but you probably get the general idea.... 2-4d GM crops might not be "commonplace" now but once Dow and Monsanto get their hooks into the market, they will be pushing them as hard as they possibly can, just like they did with the "Roundup ready" GM crops.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/08/2013 14:07

as far as I know they've always had single tolerance the triple tolerance not slightly different just making sure what you cut and paste is correct that's all yas
And people understand the difference

yas you will never admit it your anti farmer anti farming and have no knowledge of the topic and most farmers indeed use the minimum amount possible and if we didn't have to use them we wouldn't and at times I have paddocks were I don't

but this is your forum yas who are we to disagree with you
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 03/08/2013 16:46

FW, I am neither Anti farmer or anti Farming, what i am is anti chemical, as there is other ways of farming rather than just drowning crops in chemicals, after all the consumer is the one who eats the crops at the end of the day (since most no longer grow their own food) and just about every single thing that you put in your mouth these days contains chemicals in one form or another.

I know enough about farming to get by....

This is not "my forum either" i welcome more debate from others into food production as it make it more interesting.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/08/2013 09:21

Tell Naked Juice You've Joined the Boycott!

Enough is enough! First PepsiCo contributes $2.5 million to the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, the California Right to Know ballot initiative to label GMOs. Now the junk food giant has been forced to settle a $9 million class action lawsuit for inaccurately labeling its line of Naked Juice products as “natural” and "non-GMO".

Naked Juice, the Naked Truth

According to plaintiffs, Naked Juice used soy ingredients that are genetically engineered "by design or by contamination." (Naked Juice doesn't use certified organic or verified non-GMO soy.) Naked Juice intentionally used misleading language to give consumers "the false impression that the beverage's vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and juices, rather than added synthetic compounds." And the PepsiCo subsidiary contained a laundry list of synthetic chemicals, including calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde).


In addition to the $9 million settlement, PepsiCo also agreed to remove the label “All Natural” from its juices. While this does represent a landmark victory for consumers, this is no time to rest on our laurels. We clearly can't trust "non-GMO" labels voluntarily supplied by the junk food industry. We also know that the routine mislabeling and marketing of "natural products" has enabled this shadow sector to grow into a $60-billion dollar a year powerhouse by "duping" unsuspecting organic customers.

PepsiCo has other claimed organic and "natural" brands, including Tostitos, Tropicana, Tazo, Loóza, Izze, Sabra, Smartfood, Stacy's, Mother's and Near East. [b]]How can we trust what the labels on these products say?[/b

PepsiCo bankrolled the effort to narrowly deny us the right to know in California and now it's been caught using "natural" and "non-GMO" labels to deceive its more healthy-minded customers. The Organic Consumers Association has called for a Boycott of Naked Juice. We're also asking consumers to use the form below to send an email to Mike Torres, senior director of communications for PepsiCo, telling him you're all done buying Naked Juice - or any other Pepsi brand - until PepsiCo and Naked Juice support GMO labeling.

Mr. Torres provides strategic corporate and marketing communications direction for all Tropicana and Naked brands and specialty beverages. He's also responsible for overseeing the brands' social media. So after you send him an email, please visit the Naked Juice Facebook page and tell the company what you think about its betrayal of the consumer's right to know.

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9033
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/08/2013 21:03

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
FW, I am neither Anti farmer or anti Farming, what i am is anti chemical, as there is other ways of farming rather than just drowning crops in chemicals, after all the consumer is the one who eats the crops at the end of the day (since most no longer grow their own food) and just about every single thing that you put in your mouth these days contains chemicals in one form or another.

I know enough about farming to get by....

This is not "my forum either" i welcome more debate from others into food production as it make it more interesting.


(High mirth time)

Yasified shak, was there a time when food didn't contain chemicals ?. laugh








.
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/08/2013 21:05

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
andon, they have designed the GM crop to be directly sprayed with 2-4-d in exactly the same way that their "Roundup Ready" GM version is designed to have the whole crop sprayed with roundup and it does not kill the crop (among other things...)

They are now having to resort to using 2-4-d and genetically modified 2-4-d resistant crops due to the simple fact that "roundup" has been so overused that it is no longer effective in killing weeds as they are now resistant.

By the way 2-4-d is half of the chemical composition that they used to make agent Orange..


YS don't understand what I mean. You obviously don't know about 2-4d. Corn is a grass, 2-4D will not kill corn unless it is applied at a ridiculous rate. 2-4D is broadleaf selective herbicide and is commonly used in cereal crops to control broadleaf weeds in crop. To make 2-4D ready corn is a useless exercise as the chemical can be sprayed on everyday corn. If it was 2-4D ready canola or peas or similar it would make sense.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/08/2013 22:41

Originally Posted By: adon
Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
andon, they have designed the GM crop to be directly sprayed with 2-4-d in exactly the same way that their "Roundup Ready" GM version is designed to have the whole crop sprayed with roundup and it does not kill the crop (among other things...)

They are now having to resort to using 2-4-d and genetically modified 2-4-d resistant crops due to the simple fact that "roundup" has been so overused that it is no longer effective in killing weeds as they are now resistant.

By the way 2-4-d is half of the chemical composition that they used to make agent Orange..


YS don't understand what I mean. You obviously don't know about 2-4d. Corn is a grass, 2-4D will not kill corn unless it is applied at a ridiculous rate. 2-4D is broadleaf selective herbicide and is commonly used in cereal crops to control broadleaf weeds in crop. To make 2-4D ready corn is a useless exercise as the chemical can be sprayed on everyday corn. If it was 2-4D ready canola or peas or similar it would make sense.


Well, if that be the case and 2-4d corn is a "useless exercise" then, why don't you tell Monsanto and Dow not to bother with 2-4d corn? or any other GM 2-4d crop for that matter wink

Originally Posted By: datadog
(High mirth time)Yasified shak, was there a time when food didn't contain chemicals ?. laugh


Yes, Mr datadog ? laugh there was once a time where food was produced in it's natural form or as close to it as you could get, now it is just all synthetic crap designed to bump up the profits of chemical companies smirk
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 04/08/2013 23:01

"...there was once a time where food was produced in it's natural form or as close to it as you could get"

Yasified shak, when were this "once a time" of no chemicals in food ?






.





Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 06:59

adon your correct but don't waste your b reathe with yass he owns this forums and mods let him get away with everything

he is anti farming and anti farmer and would rejoice in zero chem farming and land left idle to go back to weeds if he just admitted it we would actually respect him
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 08:56

Originally Posted By: datadog
"...there was once a time where food was produced in it's natural form or as close to it as you could get"
Yasified shak, when were this "once a time" of no chemicals in food ?.


datadog When food was preserved they used natural methods or natural ingredients to preserve them, however as time went by brainiacs discovered that they could make synthetic versions of the natural ingredients and make them much cheaper, so therefore they can make more profits.

The last 30-40 years of "food production" has seen massive increases in the amount of synthetic chemicals that are added to foods.....
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 08:57

Always seems to be this confusion between opposing the forms of farming used by many farmers and thus being anti-farmer. I don't know anyone who is anti farming or anti farmer and have never seen it in these threads. Sure it can be confronting when someone strongly opposes some of the practices you believe in (have been there many times myself on this forum) but that is different to opposing farming.

You'll never get zero chemical farming - everything we do when we grow uses chemicals in some form, organic or otherwise. To aim for farming with minimal artificial inputs has got to be good surely? Nobody is suggesting letting the land go 'back to weeds' (interesting question - are they weeds if it is going back to them?) but to look to grow in a way that is as close to harmony with nature as possible. Some of the stories coming out of the States would surely indicate that this is the way to go. Not going back, rather going forwards with all the information and skills we have to hand now, combining old methods with new / revitalised skills and creating a sustainable farming future - not only for the land and consumers but also for the farmers who would have to deal with less chemicals, with all the risks that that entails?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 09:49

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
adon your correct but don't waste your b reathe with yass he owns this forums and mods let him get away with everything

he is anti farming and anti farmer and would rejoice in zero chem farming and land left idle to go back to weeds if he just admitted it we would actually respect him


FW, as i said i am neither anti farmer or anti farm, but yes i am anti chemical.

The way some would see it is that every single weed on this planet is the enemy and has to be poisoned? now where is the sense in that? weeds are the first thing that help colonize and stabilize barren ground, and if you did not have weeds you would not have any topsoil! and if you did not have topsoil you would not have any food production, no food production no farmers...hello?
Quote:
he owns this forums and mods let him get away with everything


Why are you blaming the mods? am i abusing you? am i personally attacking you? am i wildly off topic? i don't see that? that this what this thread is about farming, food production and consumers, you are a farmer and you have your views which, is pro chemicals which is why you so vehemently support chems and you are going to have to expect that people are going to have views against that.

Why should i have the same views as yourself and every other chem junkie? it would be a pretty boring place if everyone was the same!
Maybe if people started growing their own food again, and stopped relying on someone else to do it (and everything else) for them there would not be so many problems.

With the advent of technology and all of these modern "time saving and labour saving" gadgets and devices, that were supposed to improve peoples lives and lifestyles, they were supposed to save people so much time that they could just sit back and "relax" and enjoy spending time with their families... yet people are working more and more and longer and longer hours,spending more and more time away from their families, it just doesn't make sense does it?

And the catchphrase of today is "oh, i am so time poor" or I don't have the time"
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 10:23


Chemicals used in farming are used for one for one reason. To produce more from the available land. If we return to the 'good old days' then we would have to clear huge tracts of bush to try and eke some sort of production out of completely unproductive land, you would have to plant vast quantities of crops only to see returns per acre drop to less than pre industrial revolution and that of the late medieval period when it was a bag or two (180 pounds or around 88kgs) per acre instead of the current concentrations of 8 to 10 bags.

Think about it for a minute. If the farming practices of old where the best ways to grow a crop then we would still be doing them. Ploughing behind a bullock or a couple of horses, farms of less than 25 acres grouped together so that they could share the only power sources available, man and animals, paddocks only large enough that a man could plough in a day, we would be emptying our out houses on the crops as fertilizer, crop rotation would see productivity drop by a third etc.

The crops produced would be full of weeds, of varied quality, of negligible worth as a food source, lack minerals, subject to pest invasion and complete crop losses by nematodes, grasshoppers, moths, diseases such as rust etc and all so he can have 'pure' food free from chemicals.

Now bare with me for a few more seconds. The costs involved in production of these 'pure' crops would balloon out to make it totally uneconomical to actually produce anything. If you increase the land required by a factor of 4 so that you can try and get the same returns from what we can get today then every facet is increased by 4 times. 4 times more fuel, 4 times more labour costs, 4 times more transportation costs, 4 times more time taken to plough, sow, maintain and harvest a smaller crop and what is the benefit that you have managed to create by this utopian method of farming?

Basically negligible quality food that costs so much to produce no one can either afford to buy it or if they do it is of limited health benefits and has very little if any nutritional value that if it fails due to drought, pest or disease which would result in a famine that could see vast numbers of people become ill and die but yes it will be the magically chemical free and you could call it Organic if you liked but to me it is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 11:46

Ahhh yes, like back in the day when chemical companies promised massive increase in Yields with the introduction of these bueat new cheamical fertilizers......use less and grow more so they claim....
Well yes that was true for a few years, but all good things must come to an end, and crops started to dwindle....use more fertilizer then,was the next call.

So the farmers did, they applied more chemical fertilizers.....yep, this worked for a time, then sure as eggs, production yields started to drop! use more fertilizers? yep do that, so again they used more, again production increased,for a time, until it started to drop again.

But that is the trouble with chemical fertilizers, they only consist of 3 main elements N,P,K and they overlook the trace elements that are also needed by the plants to prosper, like with the overuse of superphosphate it locks up all the trace elements, result? you have to use more superphosphate to make the crop grow, now sure that is a great bonus for the chem companies as they can make more money from it....

Studies have shown that organically grown can produce higher yields that conventionally grown crops.

Organic crops, once they have an established ecosystem around them tend to resist pests better, organic farmers also use biological methods of pest control and encourage predatory insects to pray on the pest species.

So, if conventional chemical based crops were doing as well as they are claimed to be, then why do we need GM crops? because the others are failing?
If weeds were so easily managed by spraying then why do they have to be repeatedly sprayed thru a growing cycle? why are weeds becoming resistant to the current chemicals? overuse perhaps?
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 13:25

"...Studies have shown that organically grown can produce higher yields that conventionally grown crops..."

Yasified shak, you must think most farmers are in the food producing business to waste their time on low profit crops and lose money. The real world 'study' of what gets the best return is what interests most farmers - not some 'study' most likely put together by some taxpayer subsidised activist.







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 13:58

datadog why do you always put a fullstop about 8 lines after you have finished typing?
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 16:51

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
datadog why do you always put a fullstop about 8 lines after you have finished typing?


Ah needs me space.. wink








.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 05/08/2013 20:14

and that's my point chaps

But that is the trouble with chemical fertilizers, they only consist of 3 main elements N,P,K and they overlook the trace elements that are also needed by the plants to prosper

yas you can gt whatever trace elemnts you want in fert nowadays its 2013 and has been the case for last 20 yrs

yas please check your facts at least you didn't cut and paste that

your a tad out of your depth at times but imsure as always you will quickly condemn this post assuring me my fert which has copper zinc and sulphur doesn't actually contain any of it and im being fooled with blue dye which constitutes copper

geez give us all a break yas
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 06/08/2013 10:32

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
yas you can gt whatever trace elemnts you want in fert nowadays its 2013 and has been the case for last 20 yrs


Umm idnt dat what i said?

Quote:
Ahhh yes, like back in the day when chemical companies promised massive increase in Yields with the introduction of these bueat new chemical fertilizers......use less and grow more so they claim....
Well yes that was true for a few years, but all good things must come to an end, and crops started to dwindle....use more fertilizer then,was the next call.


But don't you find it funny that chemical based fertilizers were introduced when?
And trace elements have only been a concern since....?

And that is something that you just can't discount, sure trace elements may be available in different fert blends today, but like i said back in the day they were not, and that led to a massive over reliance on chem ferts because the crops just would not grow because the trace elements were not available.

And here is a bit of "cut and paste" information, for others that may not be aware of chem ferts.....

Fertilizer dependency

Effectively farmers unknowingly became 100% dependent on 'bought in' water soluble, inorganic fertilizers since the sterilization of soil microflora including its mycorrhiza, reduced the availability of other natural and trace minerals within the soil. This to some extent explains the resurgence of interest in organic and particularly 'biodynamic' farming systems since these systems replace the essential soil organisms so essential to converting soil minerals into plant available (but rarely water soluble) nutrients.[32] They do this by a variety of processes including chelation whereby essential minerals become plant available - as measured by weak citric acid extraction techniques. Hence the citric acid solubility of phosphate rocks has emerged as a measure of plant availability and enabled so-called 'reactive' phosphate rocks to be used as fertilizer minerals. These should not be confused with high fluorine apatite rocks in which the fluoride content performs a similar function to its role in hardening teeth enamel, i.e. immobilizing phosphorus. This explains the oceanic origins of many of these high fluorine rocks (Christmas Island, Ocean Island) since the fluorine absorbed from the sea has prevented what were originally massive deposits of bird guano - from being leached from the coral based limestone rocks on which they were originally deposited.

Soil acidification
Also regular use of acidulated fertilizers generally contribute to the accumulation of soil acidity in soils which progressively increases aluminium availability and hence toxicity. The use of such acidulated fertilizers in the tropical and semi-tropical regions of Indonesia and Malaysia has contributed to soil degradation on a large scale from aluminium toxicity, which can only be countered by applications of limestone or preferably magnesian dolomite, which neutralises acid soil pH and also provides essential magnesium.

Trace mineral depletion
Many inorganic fertilizers, particularly those based on superphosphate, may not replace trace mineral elements in the soil which become gradually depleted by crops. This depletion has been linked to studies which have shown a marked fall (up to 75%) in the quantities of such minerals present in fruit and vegetables.[33] Explanations for this include the early encouragement of so-called "luxury consumption" of trace elements as a result of their acidulation and subsequent dissolution in soil water, by free sulphuric acid sourced from superphosphate. This mechanism has also been identified as a possible causal agent for take-up of the heavy metal cadmium from superphosphate based fertilizers. In Western Australia deficiencies of zinc, copper, manganese, iron and molybdenum were identified as limiting the growth of broad-acre crops and pastures in the 1940s and 1950s.[34] Such nutrients are described as 'rate limiting' nutrients. Soils in Western Australia are very old, highly weathered and deficient in many of the major nutrients and trace elements.
Posted by: adon

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/08/2013 10:09

Thing is, I would love to not use any chemicals or manufactured fertilizer in my farming operation. My costs would come WAY down and so would the risk of cropping. However I have a little secret to share. I tried a method of cropping called "no kill" cropping a couple of years ago. It is a method of cropping that sows into pre existing living pastures with no chemicals and fertilisers. How did it go? Well the neighbouring paddock yielded about 3.5/tonnes to the hectare. Mine? Well I put sheep on it in the November because the crop was barley visible and clearly unviable to leave ungrazed. It was a wet year and although the growth in the paddock was clearly helped by the seeding operation Stirling up the ground, the crop was not the benifactor of it.

No YS this is a method of cropping that you would be ok with. Us farmers who are trying to eek a living out of food production are not. The only other way of cropping without chemicals requires multiple cultivation a of the soil to remove any growing plants, this does huge damage to the soil structure and the micro organisms living in it. It also requires huge amounts of fuel to do it. Costing us a fortune and to "introduce the elephant into the room" emitting a lot of "carbon" into the air. I suggest YS that you are well and truly on the AGW bandwagon. What do you want? You can't have your cake and eat it.

Pay farmers a realistic price for their produce. In the past a tonne of grain was equivalent to one weeks wages. Now it is maybe a quarter of that. I the past, the food bill accounted for the vast majority of household income, now not nearly the same.

YS you quest for chemical free food production is a noble one, however it would require the re adjusting of every part of modern western culture and society. We would basically have to go back to a sub Saharan African existence. That is probably one of the few areas on the planet that reflect what it really is like to have chemical free food production. Wild fluctuations in food stock and value, food takes over as the main expense for people, leaving all other activities and things to the dust pile because they are unaffordable. Violence due to shortages of food. (Even happened in Italy a few years ago because of wheat prices driving up pasta prices). Culture and the arts freeze due to people not being able to afford to participate.

Modern society has grown accustom to cheap and plentiful food. Allowing for people to have money spare to be able to pursue hobbies, education, arts, music and many other past times. Before the age of cheap food, only the elite of society was able to have the time and money to do anything for fun. Do you want to return the the days of pesantry and elitism?
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/08/2013 13:58

That's is the sad thing about the majority of todays society,they don’t give a stuff about what they put into their bodies, the very thing that fuels them, the very thing that keeps them alive (well except for the plethora of prescription medication they take, but that is another story.) the majority of today society are too concerned with tech junk, you know the must have type? the ones everyone pays a fortune for, until the next model comes along then,oooohhhhhhh i have to have that, so they go buy the latest “must have” and the old one that they paid all that money for only a few months back simply gets “chucked out”

Originally Posted By: Andon
Pay farmers a realistic price for their produce. In the past a tonne of grain was equivalent to one weeks wages. Now it is maybe a quarter of that. I the past, the food bill accounted for the vast majority of household income, now not nearly the same.


like i have said many times before, supermarkets are the one’s to blame for all of that, they are the ones that are screwing farmers over so that they can get the produce for as cheap as humanly possible and then inturn the supermarkets are the ones that are making all the profits, and the consumers are the ones letting it all happen.

people need to realize that if they keep buying all of their produce from supermarkets, then the little fruit and veg shops will be a thing of the past, the supermarkets will then take the opportunity to import more and more "fresh food" from countries like China, so they can bump their profits up even further.

Simple question, ask most kids where does food come from? the answer will be? the supermarket..... most kids have no idea where food comes from or let alone how it is grown, what are the kids of tomorrow going to tell their kids when they ask where does food come from? China?

Originally Posted By: Andon
Before the age of cheap food, only the elite of society was able to have the time and money to do anything for fun. Do you want to return the the days of pesantry and elitism?


Where have you been hiding? these days people are working longer and longer hours and spending more time at work than ever before? why IS that? in the pursuit of the ever mythical lifestyle that everyone wants but never seems to have? the one where the want to spend more time with their kids, the one where they want to spend more time relaxing with friends? but in reality? they are spending at that time at work, kids hardly ever see their parents or they get put into child care, when they get home what do they do? vege out in front of the TV and get drunk? before you know it your kids will have grown up, left home and what memories will they have of Mum & Dad? "well basicly i never saw them... but they bought me the latest Ipod!" smirk

Wow, that is certainly a lifestyle i do not want to aspire to!
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/08/2013 14:02

Biological pest control combat citrus disease after pesticide failure.

Beyond Pesticides August 9, 2013) Citrus growers in California are now turning to a natural solution after pesticides have been shown to be ineffective. Teams of invasive species experts have started releasing tamarixia radiate, a tiny parasitic wasp, to control the invasive Asian citrus psyllid population. Asian citrus psyllid can spread a disease which causes greening, devastating citrus production. This use of biological pest control demonstrates that the use of toxic chemicals is unnecessary as safer alternatives have already been proven effective.

California’s citrus production is a $2 billion industrWasps used to fight citrus greeningy, which accounts for 80% of the U.S. fresh market produce and after Asian citrus psyllid was detected in southern California in 2010 growers have spent close to $15 million yearly to fight this pest. The psyllids were first discovered in Florida in 1998 and has since spread to all of its 32 citrus growing counties. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has quarantined nine states, including California and Florida. The quarantines prohibit interstate movement of citrus trees and require labeling of citrus nursery stocks from areas where greening has been detected.

The psyllids cause greening by spreading a disease known as Huanglongbing (HLB) to citrus trees. A pysllid that is infected with HLB can transfer the bacterium every time it feeds on the tree. Once a tree is infected with the disease there is no known cure. HLB is one of the most severe plant diseases in the world and can affect any variety of citrus trees. The disease can lie dormant for several years before tests are able to detect it. In California, the disease was first detected in November 2012 and has only been found in nine counties that are south of the commercial growing areas, but because of this dormancy California commercial operations may already be infected. After trees become infected fruit from these trees is not suitable for consumer markets because of its green color, misshapen appearance, and distinctly bitter taste.

Since 2011, teams of invasive species experts have released more than 75,000 tamarixia wasps across southern California to combat the pysllids. In 2012, agricultural officials halted pesticide spraying in Los Angeles County because it proved ineffective. Six out of 10 trees in the county grow in backyards which if pesticides were used could lead to high levels of pesticide exposure for urban environments. To curb pysllids, teams of invasive species experts have been going to individual homes, releasing the wasps, and tracking the parasites success.

The wasps are imported from Pakistan’s Punjab region and extensive tests were conducted to make sure that the wasp would not disrupt other California species or become yet another invasive species. The wasps curb pysllid populations by wasps laying eggs inside the psyllid nymph’s stomach. As the eggs hatch, larvae slowly eats away at the nymph. The teams hope that after the wasps hatch they will fly to neighboring trees and lay eggs in new nymphs and establish a growing population. Even though the team is only about a year and a half into this effort, at some release sites the population of psyllids has dramatically declined. Mark Hoodle, Ph.D., an invasive species expert at UC Riverside, said to the Los Angeles Times, “We have no other choice except to use this natural enemy or do nothing. And the ‘do nothing’ option is unacceptable.”

Beyond this recent use of tramarixia wasp, there are many other examples of effective pest management through biological controls. Last summer, several counties in New Jersey used crustaceans, which are voracious predators of mosquito larvae, to control West Nile Virus. The most effective copepod species have the capacity to kill more than 40 mosquito larvae per copepod per day, typically reduce mosquito production by 99-100%, and can maintain large populations so long as there is a reliable water source. A report in 2007 found that Muscidifurax raptor, another parasitic wasp, was effective in controlling fruit flies in vineyards. Goats have also been used across the country to weed airports, cemeteries, and to restore soil and improve land quality. The uses of biological controls are important because they prove there are alternatives to toxic pest management.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=11498
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 10/08/2013 14:04

Bicolano farmers uproot golden rice

MORE than 400 farmers coming from all over Bicol stormed the ongoing field testing of Golden Rice at the Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit No. 5 at Pili, Camarines Sur.
Farmers uprooted the genetically modified rice in order to stop the planned commercialization of Golden Rice.
“The farmers have decided to take action against the ongoing Golden Rice field trials. Golden Rice is not an answer to the country’s problem on hunger and malnutrition” said Bert Autor , a farmer and spokesperson of SIKWAL-GMO. SIKWAL-GMO is an alliance farmers, church people, students, academecians and consumers based in Bicol who are against GMOs and Agrochemical Transnational Corporations’ control on agriculture.
Golden Rice is genetically modified with genes coming from bacteria and corn to produce beta carotene. Proponents said that Golden Rice will be used to address Vitamin A Deficiency or VAD. The project is being undertaken by the Philippine Rice Research Institute (Philrice) with field trials being conducted in Ilocos Norte, Isabela, Nueva Ecija and Camarines Sur. Cases of VAD, however, is already declining in the country according to data coming from DOST-FNRI.
Autor stressed that the Agrochemical TNCs and the US are behind the push for the adoption of Golden Rice and other GMOs. US product exports to the Philippines which are derived from modern agricultural technology increased more than 265 percent from $142 Million in 2003 to $527 Million in 2011. Soybean-based products account for most of the exported product (67 percent) followed by feeds and fodder (17 percent). In an interview, Philip Shull, agricultural counselor at the US Embassy in Manila said that the Philippines is a huge market which is growing every year and that the US government is concerned about misunderstanding GM crops and products. Golden Rice patent is owned by agrochemical giant Syngenta.
“Agrochemical TNCs, which are protected and abetted by the US government, gained millions of profit from GMOs even at the expense of the health and livelihood of Filipino farmers and consumers. They don’t care if it’s unsafe, as long as they get their profit. Such is the fate of GM corn farmers. Farmers who shifted to GM corn farming suffered the most, as the price of GM seeds and other inputs skyrocketed. The farmers are now in debt, most of them lose their land to corn traders because they are unable to pay. Once Golden Rice is commercialized, this will only lead to the privatization of our rice. Agrochemical TNCs have been waiting for this opportunity, to finally control the rice seed industry. This would mean more profit to them, as rice is the staple of Filipinos and the people of Asia” added Autor.
The farmers quickly went to the field trial site, uprooted the GM rice and buried it inside the field trial. Autor said that the field trials would only put the Filipino’s health and the environment at risk. Golden Rice field trials also puts our traditional and native rice varieties at risk of contamination.
Autor further said that “last February, we had a dialogue with officials from DA RFU5. After airing our concerns, they promised us that they will not conduct any Golden Rice field trials. However, they still continued these clandestine field trials. We are very concerned as news about feed testing will start this year and that the harvest will be used in these feed experiments. In China, the people have protested against the feed trials on children, prompting the proponents to compensate the affected families. We do not want our people, especially our children to be used in these experiments.”
Last May, the Court of Appeals ruled against the field testing of another GMO, the Bt (Bacillus thurngiensis) eggplant, saying that the field trial violates the basic constitutional right of Filipinos to health and a balanced and healthy ecology. Bt eggplant is genetically modified to produce toxins against the fruit and shoot borer. The Court of Appeals stated that there is no full scientific evidence that will ascertain the safety of the product, and that there is no single law that governs the study, introduction and use of GMOs. The court ordered the permanent cease of Bt talong field trials and the protection, rehabilitation and restoration of the environment.
“This should serve as a stern warning to those planning to conduct GM field trials in Bicol. What we need is a comprehensive and long term solution to address hunger and malnutrition. Golden Rice, and GMOs in general will only aggravate the already dire condition of the small and resource-poor farmers . We call on the Department of Agriculture to immediately cancel Golden Rice and other GMO field testing in the country. We do not want Golden Rice!”

http://www.remate.ph/2013/08/bicolano-farmers-uproot-golden-rice/#.UgWN05I3DLe
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/08/2013 13:14

Food imported from China, do you really want to be putting this on your plate?

China and Global Food Safety Violations – A Deeper Look



Pesticides were the number one problem, with 32 distinct pesticides found in Chinese foods, mostly in produce, fruit and spices. In one instance, a cumin sample had six different pesticides (acetamiprid, carbendazim, profenofos, cypermethrin, hexaconazole and Ethion) detected at violative concentrations in laboratory testing.

Antibiotics were a particular problem with seafood from China. We found multiple instances of leuco-malachite green (a metabolite of malachite green), enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin (fluoroquinolone drugs), and sulfamethoxazole (a sulfonamide drug) contamination.

Leuco-malachite green/malachite green have been banned in aquaculture by the FDA since 1983 due to serious toxicity, so their continued use in Chinese aquaculture is cause for concern. It is actually a dye used in the clothing industry, but it has anti-bacterial properties that are effective for use in fish farming. In this case we found it reported as a contaminant in tilapia, grouper, mackerel, carp and crabs.

According to the National Fisheries Institute, tilapia was the fourth-most popular seafood in America in 2012, just behind shrimp, canned tuna and salmon. Over 75 percent of all the tilapia Americans consumed in 2012 came from China. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, that’s 286.7 million pounds!

Not all of that was contaminated of course, but since the FDA inspects only 2 percent of all food imports and tests much less than 1 percent, there’s a good chance that some contaminated tilapia is getting through.

The fluoroquinolone antibiotics are not allowed for aquaculture in the United States, but they are routinely detected in Chinese seafood products. Enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin are used to control the spread of disease on fish farms, where bacterial infections can spread very quickly, depending on the farm type, due to very dense fish populations in nets and pens. The concern here is that bacteria will develop a resistance to these drugs if you ingest them regularly while eating fish, making them less effective for human use.

Sulfamethoxazole concerns are similar to those surrounding fluoroquinolones, where research has already discovered several Salmonella serotypes that are resistant to this drug, according to UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Pathogens were found mainly in seafood, with Escherichia coli, Clostridium botulinum and unspecified coliform bacteria being reported multiple times. Typically, these types of pathogens find their way into the fish because of poor process control in preparing the fish for distribution. Detection of coliform bacteria typically indicates pathogens of warm-blooded fecal origin are present.

Various chemicals were detected in excess of approved amounts, including sulfur dioxide, other various unspecified sulfites, formaldehyde, coloring dyes, and sodium saccharine. Most concerning was the detection of sodium hydroxide in milk. Also known as caustic soda or lye, sodium hydroxide is used to regulate acidity in foods. At high levels, it can be extremely caustic. Milk products from China are currently not allowed import into the United States.

A wide range of mycotoxins were present, mainly in seeds, oils, dairy and rice. Mycotoxins are poisonous molds produced by various fungi. Six types of aflatoxins were reported as well as citrinin. Testing identified aflatoxin B1 in multiple samples of peanut oil, sesame seeds, Sichuan pepper, and peanuts. Additionally, aflatoxin M1 was identified in milk powder and milk samples, while citrinin was found in red yeast rice and red yeast rice powder.

Toxic metal contamination was found across a wide range of products, although not in a large number of samples. Excessive lead was found in kelp and cinnamon, cadmium in cinnamon, bamboo pith and crab, and mercury in infant formula. The US FDA does not routinely test imports for toxic metals, except mercury.

Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) continues to be an issue in China. EMA refers to the intentional adulteration of a food with a substance for economic gain. The best-known example of this in China was the addition of melamine to milk powder in 2008, where more than 50,000 infants were made ill by the ingestion of the substance. Nearly 13,000 hospitalizations and at least four deaths occurred.

We found multiple instances where seafood had water added to increase its weight. Sometimes this can increase the weight of the fish product by as much as 30 percent, depending on the species. This is done in a number of ways, but most often comes from soaking the fish in sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP), which at high concentrations can be toxic. Fish do not naturally retain water, but soaking flaky fish fillets, shrimp or crab meat will improve the appearance of the product as well as force it to absorb water. Since fish is sold by weight, this is a cheap way to improve profits. If you see a milky substance coming from your fish while cooking, or if the size decreases dramatically, your fish may have been ‘treated’ with STPP. It may be listed on the label, but the FDA does not require it.

Furthermore, you may not know that shellfish can be sold ‘wet’ or ‘dry.’ ‘Wet’ means it’s been soaked. Ask your fish seller if he knows if the product is ‘wet’ or ‘dry.’ Here’s a video of a Chinese fish processing plant where this practice is underway (the video is in Hebrew/Chinese, but with English subtitles).

Other examples of EMA that were discovered in testing were counterfeit eggs (man-made from various substances and chemicals), synthetic shark fin, synthetic abalone and counterfeit peanut oil made from other oils. None of these products are likely to find their way to the United States. They are mostly sold at local markets, although the fake eggs have been exported to Indonesia.

Since China is one of the largest exporters of food to the United States, especially seafood, their performance in regulating their food production activities is of real consequence to the United States. The FDA has established three offices in China (Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou) with about a dozen people to begin to work with the Chinese to introduce better processes for identifying and reducing food risk so as to get an early start on producing safe food. Learn more about FDA’s efforts in China here.

Our initial analysis is based on a limited sample of data collected over 15 months. We are currently doing comparability studies with disparate data sources to discover whether the results we are seeing are typical for testing of Chinese food products. At this point, consumers are advised to exercise routine caution when deciding to purchase Chinese food products. Seafood represents the highest risk, although we cannot say precisely how much Chinese seafood may be contaminated. Our caution is based on the fact that very little of the total import amount is actually inspected and tested, and the results from foreign laboratories that do test demonstrate some persistent level of contamination across a range of products.
http://www.foodsentry.org/china-and-global-food-safety-violations-a-deeper-look/
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/08/2013 18:19

adon fyi had a day with a guy called wayne smith from WA a respected agronomist

there is a gm bred frost tolerant wheat on the for states that have gm crops now that will help farmers in frosty areas triple there income

most gm haters always link gm with chemicals nothing could be further from the truth

to get the frost tolerant gene via traditional breeding would ntake 20 yrs and always the issue is if the trait will still be there after years and years cross breeding and back crossing gm it takes about 3 then has to approved so 5 years not sure what yr were up to with and its a Australian company that has the intellectual property

could have worldwide significance watch this space
Posted by: Seina

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 11/08/2013 20:27

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
these days people are working longer and longer hours and spending more time at work than ever before? why IS that? in the pursuit of the ever mythical lifestyle that everyone wants but never seems to have?

Bold Added – I would hope not smile .
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/08/2013 09:30

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
most gm haters always link gm with chemicals nothing could be further from the truth


Ahh so we are all wrong? there are no GM roundupready crops, No BT crops?

You have to ask yourself who really benefits from GM crops? the company that sells them! So, say you buy your Monsanto brand "antifreeze" wheat, you then have to sign a contract with Monsanto to use exclusively only use Monsanto based products, like fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

You also have to pay a "Technology fee" (a royalty fee basically)for every single hectare of crops that you harvest to Monsanto at the end of planting, once you have harvested your crop you cannot save any of that seed to sow for next season's crop either, as Monsanto then owns the "intellectual property" to all that grain that you have just grown, and if you break any single one of those things on your contract Monsanto can and will sue you for breach.

What then happens to all the traditional Australian varieties of Wheat? they go extinct? the only ones available in the future will be Monsanto based GM seeds, it is a bit like the supermarket Duopoly....eventually it will only be the big biotech companies like Dow-Monsanto that will own all the patents to seeds worldwide, is that something you would really want? to have all the worlds seed/food supply in the hands of companies like that?

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
there is a gm bred frost tolerant wheat on the for states that have gm crops now that will help farmers in frosty areas triple their income

Yes, i'm sure farmers have heard that ALL before smirk they were all made wonderful promises with GM weren't they? in reality? most have super weed problems, lower yields, dying crops, insect attacks, root rot....

What gene do they insert into the Wheat to give it frost tolerance? a fish gene like they use in Strawberries perhaps?
Meddling with a plant's DNA,inserting antibiotic resistant gene markers,pesticide genes, herbicide genes (all things that were never meant to be in plants and would never naturally find their way into plants) is just asking for trouble,humans are not meant to eat food like that.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/08/2013 20:11

Quote:
...humans are not meant to eat food like that...


Yeah! Give me raw meat straight of a freshly slain bison any day.. cool







.
Posted by: bundybear

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 12/08/2013 20:53

There is plenty of scams going on with our food.

Food from china comes through NZ and is marked as produce of NZ.

Meat and seafood pumped with water. Some ham seems to have more water than meat. Why do you think $40 a kg sea scallops are in water?

Processed meats that read "product of Australia, made with local and imported ingredients" generally means the salt and water used in it is Australian. Perhaps a small exaggeration but I am sure it is true in some cases.

Until the people of Aus get rather stern with the pollies and let them know that not having a real clue where our food has come from is not on then we have no chance if buying anywhere but the local farm.

I am one of the lucky few in this country who knows where their food comes from because I have farmer friends.

I have no problem with imported food as long as it is correctly labelled and gives the buyer the opportunity to decide for themself if they wish to buy foreign food and accept the risks assosciated with that choice.
Posted by: Farm Weather

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 07:15

the frost gene is from a old arctic grass related to wheat
a Australian company has it

not sure your aware of the significance of frost damage in Australia guys were basically at the forefront worldwide of research and breeding

we pay royalties now on ever tonne we produce for 5 yrs and it aint gm here in SA so your argument is nothing new and weve been paying levies for 20 yrs for breeding

and plenty of companies have closed loop selling yas again nothing new
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 08:53

Originally Posted By: Farm Weather
the frost gene is from a old arctic grass related to wheat
a Australian company has it

not sure your aware of the significance of frost damage in Australia guys were basically at the forefront worldwide of research and breeding

we pay royalties now on ever tonne we produce for 5 yrs and it aint gm here in SA so your argument is nothing new and weve been paying levies for 20 yrs for breeding

and plenty of companies have closed loop selling yas again nothing new


There would be a difference between the two "royalties" yours were probably imposed by the grain board for a specific reason (and probably agreed upon by farmers) of research or to improve facilities,marketing and so on.

Monsanto's on the other hand is just specifically to line their own back pocket and boost their profits.

Plenty of companies have closed loop selling? well that may be true, but you have to ask yourself why companies like Monsanto and Dow are actively going around and purchasing every seed company that comes on the market, they are also actively seeking Australian wheat companies to purchase (and i am pretty sure that they already have) so that way they can push their GM seed varieties even further.

And no surprises to find out that once they purchase seed companies all of the current varieties are discontinued and replaced with Monsanto or Dow Varieties.

An idea of how many seed companies are now owned by the big biothech companies.



the methods they use to "modify" crop

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 08:57

An article on the big biotechs that are taking over control of the seed companies..............

Over the past 15 years or so, a collection of five giant biotech corporations -- Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont -- have bought up more than 200 other companies, allowing them to dominate access to seeds.

The takeover has been so dramatic that it is becoming difficult for farmers to find alternatives. As a result, in the U.S., 90 percent of soybeans are genetically-modified, and many conventional farmers have trouble obtaining non-genetically modified seeds.

According to The Ecologist:

"... [O]ne solution to restricting their control would be through banning the practice of granting patents on seeds, plants and genes. A patent gives a company exclusive rights to sell and develop a new invention. In the case of patents on plants and genes it grants them temporary monopolies and bans farmers from saving seeds".

At this point, a mere FIVE companies – biotechnology companies at that -- own the vast majority of all worldwide seeds. The enormous ramifications of this should be fairly obvious.

Genetically modified (GM) seeds, particularly corn and soy, have already taken over in many areas of the world, effectively eliminating the use of conventional and "heirloom" seeds, and along with them, the ancient, sustainable farming practices that produces healthful food.

For example, in the US, as of 2009 genetically modified (GM) soybeans accounted for 91 percent of the soybean market. Eighty-five percent of all corn grown was GM, as well as 88 percent of all cotton.

Many pro-GM crop fanatics argue that genetically engineered (GM) crops are superior in a number of ways, but evidence to the contrary is all around us…

Five Biotech Giants Now Control the Global Seed Market

The illustration below, provided by The Ecologist, shows how five biotech giants have gobbled up seed companies, large and small alike, across the world, with Monsanto clearly leading the pack.

seed industry structure

Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won at least 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company.

This is not surprising, considering they invest over $2 million a day on research and development!

But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a large number of common crop seeds, in essence patenting life forms for the first time -- without a single vote of the people or Congress.

By doing this, Monsanto has become the sole owner of many of the very seeds necessary to support the world's food supply … an incredibly powerful position that no for-profit company should ever hold.

The other heavyweights are Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and DuPont.

Combined, they have acquired more than 200 seed companies in the past 15 years. And together, they not only threaten the continuation of sustainable, renewable farming practices, their monopoly over the food supply threatens the health of every single person on the planet.

The Impact of GM Seed Monopoly

Farmers are now increasingly forced to use GM seeds simply because there are so few alternative sources of seeds remaining. The effect of this is that we're losing renewable agriculture – the age-old practice of saving and replanting seeds from one harvest to the next.

As mentioned in The Ecologist, one solution to this growing problem would be to make patenting seeds, plants, and genes illegal. As it stands now, each GM seed is patented and sold under exclusive rights. Therefore, farmers must purchase the GM seeds anew each year, because saving seeds is considered to be patent infringement. Anyone who does save GM seeds must pay a license fee to actually re-sow them.

This, of course, results in higher prices and reduced product options.

Add in the increased need for pesticides and herbicides that GM crops require and the ever rising cost of these products, and what you end up with is a far more expensive crop that has the potential to not only fail more frequently than conventional crops, but that can also be extremely harmful to the animals and humans who eat them.

(For more information about the health hazards involved, please see What You Must Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods.)

Talk about a lose-lose-lose situation.

GM Crops = Higher Costs, Lower Yields, and Far More Dangerous Foods

Two years ago, 400 scientists from around the world created a report that shows how seed and plant patents are increasing, as opposed to reducing, costs as promised. For example, between 1996, when GE seeds were introduced to the market, and 2007, the price for soy and corn seeds doubled.

But the price farmers pay for using GM seeds do not end there.

Heartbreaking proof of the devastating effect of this agricultural change can be seen in the skyrocketing suicide rate in India, where rising debt combined with frequent GM crop failures bring farmers to the brink of despair on a daily basis.

Africa has also been negatively impacted by GM crops.

SeattleGlobalJustice.org recently reported that "in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80 percent crop failure."

GM crops were brought to market with the promise of higher yields, lower costs, and reduced pesticide use. None of them have turned out to be true…

On the contrary, GM soya has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya, for example, and up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India.

In the US, studies by scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia has shown that growing GM cotton can result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent.

As for pesticide use, USDA data shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the use of glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds.

These Roundup tolerant superweeds and Bt resistant pests render the two major GM crop traits completely useless...

Not only that, we now have confirmed transgene contamination in the wild.

Although Monsanto and others denied this possibility, this was long ago predicted and precisely what one would expect.

Scientists have recently confirmed that the genome (whether plant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, which is the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants and animals. Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and changeable, constantly 'conversing' and adapting to the environment.

In reality, GM crops are a scientific experiment based on flawed assumptions, and anything is possible – and I can strongly guarantee you, it isn't good, and it won't get any better.

The report, 'Future of seeds and food', published last year by the international coalition of No Patents on Seeds, calls out for an end to patenting seeds, plants, and animals, and the need to stop the food monopoly created by Big Biotech. And I agree, little could be more important at this point in time.

There are already clear indications that unless the GM seed monopoly is put to an end, our whole ENTIRE food supply will become contaminated, putting everyone's health at risk.

How?

Many conventional and organic livestock farmers alike are now being forced to use GM feed, simply because there are no other options available!

Situation is Actually Worse than We Knew

Not only do we have the problems that have been previously discussed over the years with GM crops but there are some new elements to the equation. For now even those that are convinced of the dangers of GMO crops and want to avoid using them simply are unable to in some cases.

I recently received a personal letter from one such farmer, who runs a small ecological farm in Ohio. Even though she is dedicated to organic farming, she is now finding herself in the unthinkable predicament of being forced to buy Monsanto GM corn feed for her pigs and chickens.
Be Part of the Solution

In spite of what you have likely heard, a large shift to organic agriculture -- which by definition is non-GM -- could protect and improve both the environment and animal- and human health.

It could even be the solution to world hunger. According to a Danish study presented to the U.N. in 2007, recent models of an organically grown, global food supply shows that a more environmentally friendly approach to agriculture is in fact capable of producing enough food for the world's current population.

What prevents many farmers from making the move to organic is that crop yields could initially drop as much as 50 percent in the very beginning, before evening out over time. However, that problem may be mitigated somewhat, because farmers wouldn't need to dole out precious money for toxic pesticides, the price of which have risen as much as 75 percent already.

Unfortunately, while we're waiting for the leaders of the world to catch up and realize the dire straits we're in as a species, we're running out of time. As evidenced by Cappello's story above, our ability to produce organic foods is under constant attack.

So, please, do not wait for some unspecified time in the future.

Instead, do what you can NOW to promote local organic food producers no matter where you live by taking advantage of local sources of organic foods as often as you can.

In addition, please take every measure you can to avoid as many GM foods as you possibly can. Here's a list of tips to help you do just that:

Reduce or eliminate processed foods. Some 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients.
Read produce and food labels. When looking at a product label, if any ingredients such as corn flour and meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, and tofu (to name a few) are listed, there's a good chance it has come from GM corn or soy, unless it's listed as organic.
Buy organic produce. Buying organic is currently the best way to ensure that your food has not been genetically modified.
Download and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and share it with your friends and family
Avoid purchasing Monsanto-made pesticides and herbicides for your home
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...re-of-food.aspx
Posted by: SBT

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 09:35

The strong prey on the weak as it is in nature so it is in business. If you can buy any competitor out to stop them selling a product then that is legal and while it may not look morally right to some people there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them doing it and it makes good business sense to do so if you can afford it.

Every corporation does this, not just Monsanto. Smaller companies don't have to sell. They can always hold out and either ride out the take over bid or go broke. Such is the nature of business and the basis of the capitalist system we live in.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 10:39

Quote:
... Such is the nature of business and the basis of the capitalist system we live in....


And is why, as a percentage of weekly income, food is the cheapest its ever been.


Get rid of the idiotic biofuel crops and food would be cheaper again.. wink







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 12:32

Yes, business is business, but when you have a company or companies that are taking over the seed industry (Food chain) and then Deleting all varieties of seeds that have evolved over thousands of years and replacing them with their own genetically modified stock, so eventually the only choice left will be GM seed, that is morally wrong.

You are also potentially putting the lives of millions of people at risk by doing that, as with their crops they only rely a few varieties of seed, what happens if say there was another irish potato famine where the whole countries potato crops were wiped out because the Irish only planted the 1 variety of Potato at the time?

If people were not so fussy about the fresh food that they buy being 100% perfect the fresh food would be a lot cheaper also and there would be much less wastage in this world.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 12:53

Quote:
...but when you have a company or companies that are taking over the seed industry (Food chain) and then Deleting all varieties of seeds that have evolved over thousands of years...


"deleting" ??? ...like hitting the delete button ?







.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 13:12

Yep, he is right on this one. Combine with attempts to change laws to make it illegal to exchange traditional varieties of seeds and you can see where the seed multinationals are heading.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 15:45

Quote:
...Combine with attempts to change laws to make it illegal to exchange traditional varieties of seeds...


A reference please.








.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 21:55

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Modified Food

Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.

But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals – research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites Genetically Modified Food Safety Concerns

Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”

Vrain writes:1

“There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”

‘The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology Is Based on a Misunderstanding’

This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors — namely, “factors beyond the control of the gene” – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.
According to Vrain:

“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”

In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.

Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer

GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of genetically modified food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety

Vrain cites the compelling report “GMO Myths and Truths”2 as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically modified foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true.

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.

Not only are genetically modified (GM) foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market… once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:3

“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”


Full story
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/08/...ied-food-11174/
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 13/08/2013 22:52

An interesting short clip on GM grin
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/08/2013 06:59

Quote:
...scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely...


Yasified shak, a link to the research if you please.








.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/08/2013 07:12

Dr Channapatna S. Prakash, via jennifer marohasy...

“As the world’s population continues its increase, sustainable food production is becoming increasingly challenging. More food must be produced in the next 50 years than has been produced since the invention of agriculture. GM crops are a critical resource in accelerating increases in crop productivity in general, as well as in enhancing their nutritional value to treat malnutrition and nutrient deficiencies. In that context, Golden Rice is a critical resource in fighting the devastating consequences of widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing nations.

“Research on Golden Rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is part of their humanitarian work to reduce vitamin A deficiency, a serious condition of malnutrition mostly affecting women and children by causing sickness and leading, in many cases, to blindness and premature death of millions each year. According to IRRI, vitamin A deficiency affects more than 15% of children aged 6 months to 5 years and subclinical vitamin A deficiency affects 10% of pregnant women in the Philippines. Golden Rice, when it becomes freely available to farmers as planned, can substantially contribute to the alleviation of this important aspect of malnutrition…"

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/scientific-community-condemns-destruction-of-golden-rice/







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 14/08/2013 18:57

An interesting Docco about the nasty side of GM crops.....

Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 16/08/2013 08:44

Now that's more like it! grin

Victory for Willamette Valley Farmers and Public as Oregon Governor Signs Moratorium on Canola Production

New Law Protects $50 Million Industry, Halting Canola Production until 2019, As Sought by a CFS Lawsuit
Late yesterday, Governor John Kitzhaber (D-OR) signed into law a bill banning commercial production of canola (rapeseed) until 2019 inside the three million acre Willamette Valley Protected District, one of the world’s pre-eminent vegetable seed producing regions.
Center for Food Safety (CFS) had sued the Oregon Department of Agriculture after seed and organic vegetable farmers objected to a controversial decision to permit canola production in the Willamette Valley. In court filings, Center for Food Safety argued that canola readily cross-pollinates with brassica specialty seed crops like broccoli, kale, and cabbage; spreads plant diseases and pests to brassica vegetable and seed crops; and can contaminate pure lots of vegetable and clover seed, rendering them unsalable in international and local markets. The vast majority of canola is genetically engineered, which contaminates organic and conventional varieties, as well as cross-pollinates with weeds, creating new invasive species problems, as herbicide resistant traits spread to native weed populations.
“Oregon’s lawmakers and governor have made the right decision: to protect the valuable industry in the Willamette Valley. The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s unlawful action would have allowed dangerous canola planting into the Valley, jeopardizing both Oregon’s farmers and environment,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety. “This important agricultural market will now continue to be a revenue center for the state of Oregon and a source of good jobs for Oregonians.”
“We applaud Governor Kitzhaber for signing HB 2427 into law. Canola is a very risky crop to introduce due to cross-pollination risk and increased pest and disease pressure on other important regional crops. The Willamette Valley should ultimately be protected for the long term, but this bill provides certainty and protections for the Willamette Valley's valuable specialty seed, fresh market vegetable and organic industries for the next several years, while ensuring future decisions are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed science,” said Ivan Maluski, policy director for Friends of Family Farmers.
The new law overturns an unlawful rule adopted by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) in February 2013 that would have allowed thousands of acres of industrial canola to be planted over the next decade in a region where production of the plant for its seed has long been banned. The Oregon Department of Agriculture attempted in August 2012 to open the valley to widespread canola planting despite overwhelming public opposition. Center for Food Safety and Friends of Family Farmers, on behalf of individual growers, challenged ODA’s original temporary rule, which would have allowed canola planting in the fall of 2012. The Oregon Court of appeals halted that rule-making as unlawful. Because of this successful challenge, no planting of canola has been allowed in the Willamette Valley.
ODA did not give up, again proposing planting in spring 2013. Thus on April 25, 2013 Center for Food Safety filed another lawsuit to halt ODA’s rule to allow canola in the Willamette Valley on behalf of Friends of Family Farmers, Center for Food Safety, Universal Seed, and Wild Garden Seed.
“Working closely with the farmers and allies, we were able to act fast to prevent ODA’s disastrous decision from taking effect. Our court case prevented any canola from being planted, allowing time for our legislative strategy to work. Fortunately, this new law will trump the agency’s unlawful rule that would have allowed planting. This valuable industry is safe from the threat of canola,” added Kimbrell.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press...nola-production
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/08/2013 11:51

Wow, you could just imagine the outcry if this sort of thing happened on a GMO based farm.....

SWAT Team Searches Farm for 10 Hours, Seizes Organic Okra

Workers at a small organic farm in Arlington, Texas were terrified when a SWAT team descended on them, held them at gunpoint, and conducted a 10-hour search, according to civil liberties reporter Radley Balko.

Police had a warrant to search for marijuana plants, but they didn't find any at the farm. Instead they seized "17 blackberry bushes, 15 okra plants, 14 tomatillo plants...native grasses and sunflowers," according to Balko.

The police also had a warrant to related to code violations, according to their statement, but that warrant wasn't used in this raid. The farm had recently been cited for "grass that was too tall, bushes growing too close to the street, a couch and piano in the yard, chopped wood that was not properly stacked, a piece of siding that was missing from the side of the house, and generally unclean premises."

Using SWAT teams for minor police matters is become increasingly common, as we've reported at Politix. Many police departments own extensive military gear, as Balko has documented in his book. And once police get hold of it, they use it, even if they have no real need. That's led to SWAT teams being deployed to enforce minor regulatory violations, like the one described here.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/7526-swat-team-searches-farm-for-10-hours-seizes-organic-okra
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/08/2013 18:06

Quote:

...scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely...


Seems i need to repeat the question...

Yasified shak, a link to the research if you please.








.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/08/2013 18:08

Quote:
via Bello Boy:
Quote:
...Combine with attempts to change laws to make it illegal to exchange traditional varieties of seeds...


Try again...

Bello Boy, can we see some proof of claims please.







.
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 18/08/2013 21:01

Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:

...scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely...


Seems i need to repeat the question...

Yasified shak, a link to the research if you please.

Have a look back thru the tread it has been posted before, otherwise the internet is a wonderful research tool, and it may enlighten you if you search yourself.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 09:46

Quote:
Have a look back thru the tread it has been posted before, otherwise the internet is a wonderful research tool, and it may enlighten you if you search yourself.


Hmmm... though i want the same reference/link that 'enlightened' you.. smile






.
Posted by: KevD

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 09:52

Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:
via Bello Boy:
Quote:
...Combine with attempts to change laws to make it illegal to exchange traditional varieties of seeds...


Try again...

Bello Boy, can we see some proof of claims please.


All over the internet, one site with background is this one: http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html
Posted by: @_Yasified_shak

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 11:48

Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:
Have a look back thru the tread it has been posted before, otherwise the internet is a wonderful research tool, and it may enlighten you if you search yourself.


Hmmm... though i want the same reference/link that 'enlightened' you.. smile


If i knew you were serious and not just here for a "laugh" then it may be different, but when you add comments like....
Originally Posted By: datadog
(High mirth time)
Yasified shak, was there a time when food didn't contain chemicals ?. laugh
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 16:37

Originally Posted By: Bello Boy
Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:
via Bello Boy:
Quote:
...Combine with attempts to change laws to make it illegal to exchange traditional varieties of seeds...


Try again...

Bello Boy, can we see some proof of claims please.


All over the internet, one site with background is this one: http://www.realseeds.co.uk/seedlaw.html


Thanks for that Bello Boy. Gots some reading ahead of me. Sounds like yet more European nonsense to be imposed on the world.








.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 16:39

Originally Posted By: @_Yasified_shak
Originally Posted By: datadog
Quote:
Have a look back thru the tread it has been posted before, otherwise the internet is a wonderful research tool, and it may enlighten you if you search yourself.


Hmmm... though i want the same reference/link that 'enlightened' you.. smile


If i knew you were serious and not just here for a "laugh" then it may be different, but when you add comments like....
Originally Posted By: datadog
(High mirth time)
Yasified shak, was there a time when food didn't contain chemicals ?. laugh


Yasified shack, if you don't know the answer, just say so.







.
Posted by: datadog

Re: Farming, food production and consumers - 19/08/2013 21:36

Ugh... eye glazing stuff. sleep

via the Bello Boy link...
...be warned. By all means, read it yourself. But you have to pretty much ignore the Summary as that is not the Law, and does not reflect what is in the Law. The actual meat of it starts around about Page 25. Some of the more important articles are 2, 3, 14, and 36 but you do need to read all the rest as well to see how they fit together...

Forewarned, i dive in...

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf

P17 - 27: ...Plant reproductive material which is made available on the market only in limited quantities by small producers (“niche market p