Obama give Monsanto the "go ahead" to put GMOs in our food!!

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
Obama signed a bill allowing the major elitest company monsanto to continue putting GMOs and other chemicals in our food, while health risks are still widely unknown..

 

Another reset of the clock and evidence *sigh*.

 

A very close friend of mine is epeleptic. She was taking a dozen or more pills a day and still suffered from up to 20 seizures a day. The time came where she was fed up.....she stopped taking ALL of the meds and started a non GMO diet. She went from 20 seizures a day to goiń 6 months without one.

 

It's not! That's todays News so obviously it's not! You're one of those people who believe they put flouride in our water to "whiten our teeth!"- Uh, No!

 

It is not new news regarding the safety of GM. Spooky fluoride news is also old news.

 

I think it is truly evil that companies such as Monsanto can in effect issue a patent on life itself,regardless of whether their produce is safe to eat or not:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/19/opinion/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-court-seed-20130219

 

You are the problem here

You put the debate in a place that can be squarely won by monsanto, when it's not the problem at all.

The problem is allowing a corporation to patent life, as fairlight says, and the fact that that patent can infect unrelated life, which the corporation then tries to charge for.

It's also that monsanto is screwing up biodiversity, not only by putting so much of this stuff out there that will mix with other strains, but by destroying other strains simply because people can't compete when planting other things, because it's more profitable to grow one from monsanto.

It's putting the entire world's food supply at risk, for corporate profit. And that's a pretty fucking big deal.

I'm totally in favor of legislation that forces labeling of GMO food, but it's not because of some imaginary health risks, it's so that I can choose to not buy it, to support those who support biodiversity. I'd rather buy an heirloom strain for many times the price, than cheap shit that puts all of us in danger of starvation, and uses corporate muscle (and, as bradley manning showed, US national muscle) to bully any who don't bend over and spread their asscheeks for them.

So, stop waving your arms about some imaginary problem, they will win that debate because you are making up the problem. Worry about the real problem: catastrophic world starvation as a result of plague/blight, or the very same climate change that them and their associated companies are working so hard on, and their genetically homogeneous plants not being able to adapt and evolve, and provide strains that we can continue to eat with.

Government subsidies should not be paying rich fucks not to plant fields, they should be paying small farms whatever it takes to preserve as many strains as possible, of everything.

 

There haven't been very many studies on gmos and the health risks are largely unknown. I don't really see how that's old news or not part of the problem.

At any rate, the more people that eat local and organic the less clout Monsanto has. Labeling is ideal but obviously the government has their hands in Monsanto's pockets so that won't happen. I generally assume everything in the supermarket is GM and avoid it all together.

 

Do you even know what GMO means? It's not a chemical that is put into our food. I don't like GMO strains and I hate Monsanto.
But at least if you are going to start screaming about another thing Obama has done at least know what it is.

 

Obama may have signed it, but it passed overwhelmingly in the house and the senate, and was sponsored by a republican. The politicians probably got huge kickbacks for getting this bill thru.

 

Well, what needs to be studied?

You eat food, you dissolve it and absorb nutrients, you shit out what's left.

Genetic modification means new or changed orders, in the base pairs of DNA. They change what the plant does, but if you insert a gene to make a plant, say, make different carotenoids, you are not doing anything that needs to be studied, any more than eating carrots does. (this is something being done to rice, I believe). If you insert the base pairs that code for strychnine, well yeah, people would die.....

The scientists are not explicetly studying the effects of genetic modification, because that's a waste of time. There is a huge amount known about genetics, and biochemistry. These people are studying more important things than exactly your belly handles rice that has carrot pigments in it.

just for you guys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN3Ly-eCaQI

 

That's not exacty all that genetic modification entails. A large part of it involves making plants resistant to pests and insecticides. Does round-up resistant plants ring a bell? This involves inserting a pesticide-resistant protein (Bt toxin) into the plant's genetic code. Its not like humans have been chowing down on food containing the Bt toxin for thousands of years so we have no clue how it effects the human body long-term.

 

Perhaps we have: Bacillus thuringiensis

This natural insecticide is produced by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (called "Bt") that has been used for decades by organic farmers to control crop-eating insects and by the World Health Organization to kill mosquitoes without using dangerous chemical pesticides.

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/

 

53,000 scientific articles on safety issues related to GM foods and that is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the total number and doesn't even include the non-peer reviewed material that is still scientifically accurate and available for anyone without subscription to scientific journals.

eta: looking through that search list, there are a few in there that are not from peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, it was just a perfunctory search. There are entire journals dedicated to this topic alone. The number of scientific studies is probably in the several hundred thousand range I'd guess.

 

And now we have roundup resistant weeds. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/19/herbicide-resistant-super-weeds-increasingly-plaguing-farmers



It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

 

See, THAT is the kind of problem that worries me. Reducing good genetic diversity, while effecting the genetics that you don't want to effect.

It's not what happens when you eat the stuff, as long as you make sure any particular thing that you make the plant do is safe.

I'd be a lot more worried about all the roundup that's ending up in the roundup resistant plant, than the way they make it resistant.

These are not inherent problems to genetic engineering, but they are morality/"free market" problems, that seriously endanger the world.

 

One problem you are missing with the Roundup ready GMO's is they can and will be sprayed with roundup throughout the growing season including harvest. This puts the Roundup right there on the grocer's shelf. I really don't think I need to explain why that could be troublesome.


Now while you guys sit here and beat up on Monsanto... There's another company that is lobbying heavily in Washington. They have the perfect answer for those pesky little Roundup resistant weeds.... Dow Chemical. They want to develop some GMO's too. Enter in the new Agent Orange ready crops... For you that don't remember the little war we had with N. Vietnam... The Vietnamese are still having problems from that friendly little weed killer we drenched their country with.

Now to be perfectly honest, it's not actually Agent Orange but 2,4D the main ingredient in Agent Orange that would be flavoring the cornflakes in your cereal bowl for breakfast... Mmmm tasty!

 

Oh come one, agent orange is totally safe.

The federal government has repeatedly asserted this, because we're still using it in columbia at this very moment

Where it is, of course, causing the same problems it did in vietnam.

 

Hmm...I have no liking at all for the Monsantos and Dow Chemicals of the world. I think their patents are too far-reaching (absurd in some cases) and I do have a problem with the reduction of biodiversity that they encourage. I'm not real worried about pesticides in food though. I haven't seen much in the way of convincing evidence that shows significant amounts of residue on or in the products of agribusiness. If we stopped using pesticides for mass production of food I rather doubt there'd be much food left after the pests had at it. If our global population was closer to 7 million rather than 7 billion, perhaps we could perhaps revert back to farming that doesn't rely so heavily on the fossil fuel/pesticide treadmill.

I really would prefer to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables (I remember the heritage varieties and how much better they tasted too) that were not doused in petrochemicals. I'd like for fields to be left fallow to allow the soil to regenerate its nutrients and see a type of farming that prevented, rather than enhanced, erosion and so on. I'm just fairly skeptical that it could be done economically on such a large scale.

 

http://responsibletechnology.org/docs/gm-crops-do-not-increase-yields.pdf