When will it be ALL GONE?

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by niky

Go back and read the SciAm critique of the study which shows the negative relation between higher levels of round-up and mortality (which should increase with increasing doses of the weedkiller if there is a positive co-relation). I can't be bothered to post the same things over and over... not like some people...

I believe you need to understand Mansanto is the place that figured out Arsenic laced chicken feed made them gain weight, now they are getting sued by various rice farmers because the rice fields are poisoned with the chicken litter they used to use for fertalizer but now exceed the limits on arsenic.

There is nothing safe, inexpensive, intelligent or usefull about factory food, just like back in the old days where the sausage factories dumped the scum, hair mud and rust from cleaning back into the sausage to save money.

[radioranger]

The weird thing that i've recalled on this topic is how they patent the seed and if you somehow get it to reproduce they sue you or something similar to that. even if it blows onto your field. guess you could sue them back for not keeping their plants where they should. starting to sound like a divorce case.

[NeilBlanchard]

Do smaller farmers have money for lawyers? How can they control which way the wind blows and what their neighbor plants? It sounds like a way to strong arming farmers into using their expensive products?

[freebeard]

Monsanto's game plan is to turn a profit on every seed that enables humanity's survival going forward, in perpetuity. Corporate logic.

Where the hubris come in is assuming that their patented genes won't jump species as well as hedgerows.

[radioranger]

As a basic hunter gatherer by nature, seems that way anyway, they sure are taking the fun out of survival, making it too easy for some and maybe ruining the species , us , not that I've ever hunter gathered anything , except fish and clams , but it is strangely satisfying. my worries have been to keep their chemicals out of my gathering areas which is of course impossible , I think the more pressing issue long term is china's destruction of the enviroment over their area and then it blows here n 5 days!! and into our water etc.think mercury . Cfl bulbs by the millions , a big mistake, go led

[user removed]

Of the Attorneys, by the Attorneys, for the Attorneys.

regards
Mech

[redpoint5]

The implication that we should revert back to horse and plow farming with all natural processes to grow and fertilize crops and raise livestock is foolish. It would take many times more land to produce enough food for the world, which still doesn't produce quite enough for everyone. On top of that, 90% of us would be farmers and would work 10hr days. The standard of living would be so low that laptop computers and chatting on the internet would not be possible.

How many here would truly prefer we go back to the 1800s? I'm thankful that those who would are in the minority, because I quite enjoy the free time I have to travel, and technology that allows me to pursue academic interests.

Will farming be different in the future and cause less "harm"? Of course. Does that mean should take an enormous technological leap back in time and wait in poverty for that better future to magically arrive? NO.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Factory farming is not low price - we are exhausting the fossil water aquifers, the topsoil is washing away, fertilizer and pesticides are poisoning the water and causing dead zones in the ocean, and the fertilizer is breaking down into nitrous oxide which is about 25% of the GHG that humans produce.

The food grown on factory farms tastes lousy, has lower nutrition than organic. We factory farm beef and pigs and chickens, and they are so sick we have to pump them full of antibiotics, and we are not satisfied with how fast they grow, so we pump 'em full of growth hormones, too.

Gee, I wonder if eating meat that is loaded with antibiotics and growth hormones is going to have any effects on us? What happens when the aquifers are dry? As the climate warms, we can't just move farming north - there is no rich soil, and no pollinators, and the sunlight is not what the plants need.

Everything you have stated is subjective. I happen to like the taste of the food I eat, and I have never been made ill by consuming it. If there were evidence to show that the food is causing illness, then lawsuits would be brought against those responsible for the harm.

What essential nutrients are missing from a factory raised cow when compared to a "free-range" cow?

The fact is, there is a larger food supply now than in any other time in history. Another fact is that people live longer than they did back when everything was "organic", whatever that phrase means.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I believe you need to understand Mansanto is the place that figured out Arsenic laced chicken feed made them gain weight, now they are getting sued by various rice farmers because the rice fields are poisoned with the chicken litter they used to use for fertalizer but now exceed the limits on arsenic.

There is nothing safe, inexpensive, intelligent or usefull about factory food, just like back in the old days where the sausage factories dumped the scum, hair mud and rust from cleaning back into the sausage to save money.

Of course, safe is a subjective term. It seems the majority has decided our food is safe enough, and that having enough food is more important than having the elusive "safe" food.

Monsanto in particular has done some very unethical things and should compensate their victims for their loss, but providing pesticides and pesticide tolerant crops is not among those unethical things. If there were a cheaper way to farm, we would be doing it.

Originally Posted by radioranger

...my worries have been to keep their chemicals out of my gathering areas which is of course impossible...

I went clam killing back in May with 5 other friends and we all reached our limits. Nobody there was cursing Monsanto.

[freebeard]

Monsanto in particular has done some very unethical things and should compensate their victims for their loss, but providing pesticides and pesticide tolerant crops is not among those unethical things.

Ethics is such a cloudy, squishy thing; could one say it is .... unwise?

[niky]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

I believe you need to understand Mansanto is the place that figured out Arsenic laced chicken feed made them gain weight, now they are getting sued by various rice farmers because the rice fields are poisoned with the chicken litter they used to use for fertalizer but now exceed the limits on arsenic.

There is nothing safe, inexpensive, intelligent or usefull about factory food, just like back in the old days where the sausage factories dumped the scum, hair mud and rust from cleaning back into the sausage to save money.

The morality or lack of morality of certain corporations does not reflect as to whether something they do is bad or not. The only thing that determines whether something is bad or not is the fact that it is bad... or not.

Again, I am perfectly willing to accept that Monsato is a vile, profiteering, dangerous agricultural monopolist that promotes bad practices and maybe sells dangerous products. And that excessive fertilizer and pesticide use is bad for the environment.

But I need to see the evidence backed by hard facts rather than pandering rhetoric. And many of the links posted don't show a positive correlation that would stand up to close scrutiny. Not the Indian farmer suicides, not the lab rats, not the Parkinsons links. (So, are we going by case studies with single patients, now? The same kind that proved, once and for all, that cellphones cause brain cancer?)

Sure, Monsato, evil. Yeah. Industrialist out to take advantage of poor farmers. But saying that Monsato is the only reason Indian farmers are suffering is grossly oversimplifying the problems of third world farming.

And once you oversimplify, you ignore other factors that are more pressing. Abject poverty. Farmers trying to support too many dependents on parcels of land that are too small. Inefficient farming practices. Lack of sufficient credit, lending institutions and government props to suport farmers through lean times. Poor climate, drought, etcetera.

The Monsato crops fail because they fail to address the rest of the issues present, while adding the issues of more expensive seed stock upfront, reliance on costly fertilizers and pesticides and the dangers of monoculture and single-crop versus rotation.

But they're not the only cause. And their failure is not because they're "GMO".

As for crop patenting... cross-pollination makes such lawsuits problematic... and frivolous. You'd have to prove (as the corporation) that there is a systematic attempt to steal your property. Suing farmers for having fields with scattered samples of your seeds IS one of the unethical things Monsato et al are doing.

[radioranger]

Well the clams and all the coastal creatures even more are probably affected by the unreal amounts of roundup used, landscapers love the stuff, i tried to get a green jobs grant to by a steam cleaner for killing weeds because i found out the railroads were using steam in some places for weed control, no luck, shoulda changed my party i guess!!