going organic

not unless the garden you happen to grow is from seeds passed down from people to people that are outside the seed monopoly....as i said i wasnt perfect so where i havent got seed yet for particular varietys i do buy seed from the profit mongers

 

Sorry, but even the heirloom varieties were modified by cross pollination centuries ago. Potatoes were originally poison. Apples were so bitter they were only good for cider. Tomatoes were so small they were hardly worth growing. Corn only produced a few kernels with very hard shells.

Then, there is that one pesky fact: While the so many modifications of our food crops occurred in the 20th century, the human life span also increased by over a decade.

The companies you call a "seed monopoly" also sell many of those heirloom varieties.

.

 

I was refering to my dislike of GM...

my objection is against man tampering with the genetic codes within our foods...i have nothing against astute breeding..

what you call heirloom varieties of vegetables are not genetically modified...well maybe yours sold by the monopoly companies over there are but the varieties growing in rural areas here are not....

have fun now

 

What exactly do you think "astute breeding" is? When you select one plant to take seeds from because of it's size or taste, you are selecting that plant for it's genetic code. What do you think it is that makes one plant different from another? When you select a plant for a specific property for several generations you are modifying the genetic code. There isn't any way to get around this fact. Modifying plant characteristic in the lab is more precise and less time consuming.

They are extremely genetically modified by breeding. The potato was poison because of a specific gene. This gene was modified by crossbreeding to produce a potato that does not make you sick.

.

 

breeding isnt splicing another species plant or animals DNA into a plant to improve it....no matter how you play it breeding is NOT genetic engineering

 

thats lab work bud...breeding is picking a seed ....all natural

 

Where are you getting this stuff from? Nobodies making "Killer Tomatoes." It's difficult to debunk superstitions. Show me some facts.

.

 

you want me to prove that genetic engeneering isnt natural?



nobody said anybody was creating killer tomatoes...

thought we were just discussing our personal views on organic versus inorganic......?

has this crossed over to arguing a point ? im not here for that

[and read the book]

 

No, your idea of what constitutes "natural" and mine are somewhat different.

I would like to see some evidence that genetic modifications in a lab are different from modifications that nature produces as a result of natural selection, and breeding brings about by human intent.

And, what evidence exists to support this conclusion since there are numerous plants that have developed disease and insect resistant qualities as a result of natural selection and breeding. Why would laboratory results of genetic modifications be any different?

I would like to understand why some people are so "resistant" to this area of science that has the ability to increase food production and quality in a short period of time.

.

 

A large part of that resistance comes from two facts;

1) GM crops are not being driven by science, they are being driven by profit. If it was science driven and being geared towards making healthier food, it would be different. As it is, it is geared towards making more profit.

2) The rush for profit (and the associated power) has led to many disasters that could have been avoided if the companies and people behind them cared more about healthy bodies then bottom lines.

There is a difference between selective breeding and genetic splicing in a lab. With selective breeding, we are not 'creating' a different plant or spieces, we are selecting the ones with traits we like out of those that occur naturally.

With genetic splicing in a lab, it is literally the creation of different species.

We already have screwed up the balance of nature enough with these games because we don't understand enough about how things are interdependant and what the results of the introduction of new lab bred species will be.

Just look at the havoc we have created in eco-systems by simply introducing a species from a different part of the world and then imagine what will happen when gm crops (that never existed anywhere in nature) specifically bred to supplant other species are spreading.

 

For those who would like to explore the option of organic growing, either for you and your family or as an organic farm, The Organic Growers School is hosting the True Nature Country Fair on the weekend of September 25th and 26th, 2010 at the Big Ivy Community Center in Barnardsville, NC (in the mountains northeast of Asheville).

60 classes, workshops, and plant walks on topics including medicinal herbs, homesteading, health and healing, permaculture, primitive skills, gardening, alternative energy, green building, and more!

For details see Organic Growers School web page

 

Simple answer: No.
Long answer: Carbaryl is a cholinesterase inhibitor and is toxic to humans. It is classified as a likely human carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.). Carbaryl is produced by treating methyl isocyanate with 1-naphthol. Isn't a naturally occurring substance at all.

 

I am a bit like you. And while working in nurseries it's been a necessity to use some chemicals. At home I am poor and tend more towards organic, but I am not a purist. My produce and plants at home don't have to be perfect, but what you retail has to meet the expectations of the consumers, and sometimes you just have to use some help.

 

I hear that about marigolds all the time. Thing is I can't grow them. Sow bugs eat them down to bare stems every year in my flower beds. Very frustrating.

 

Um, okay. Here you go.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

And just for shits and giggles:

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

Also, natural selection doesn't require a PATENT. If you genetically engineer seeds and then get it patented so you own those seeds, it just doesn't sit well with me. So to be quite honest, I don't really give a damn what kind of "evidence" you have. I'm not supporting that company. Ever.

 

I hear you. The reasonable use of some pesticides and fertilizers makes sense if your time and labor pool is limited. Integrated pest management is the best practice. You only need to apply chemicals when absolutely necessary and you can only do that if you spend some time observing your plantings. American farmers and commercial ag got into trouble when they focussed soley on applying things as the chemical companies told them to without question. Think about it the corporations are all about selling their product. Farmers had a responsibility to montior their crops and not overuse chemicals. Moderation in all things, that's key.

 

Not necessarily the whole truth. Monsanto spends a lot of time genetically engineering plants so that the farmer can also spray the field with herbacides. I don't really think I am all that excited about eating corn that can withstand a "Roundup" bath.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews....udy-intensifies-debate-over-inert-ingredients

 

Try guinea fowl. They love to eat arthropods!

 

I've know a few lovely guineas at work. Funny birds very territorial and extremely prehistoric to look at. They would follow us around as we watered. My boss used to pick up a bug and call: "bug bug" and they would come running.

I am done with chickens at home though. The local fox got my last rooster/chicken last year. Not a bad way for old Henry to go, he was going on ten anyway and all his hens were gone. Besides chicken scratching can cause as much damage as the bugs they eat. They were fun while I had them.

 

Perhaps this might be a good example:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101

Not exactly the production gain Monsanto advertised.