Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
New experimental GMOs cause Public outrage after USDA colludes with biotech industry


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046608_GMOs_USDA_biotech_industry.html#ixzz3BWNwI8TR


(NaturalNews) Despite a groundswell of opposition from watchdog groups, doctors, scientists, 50 members of Congress and thousands of members of the general public, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided to move forward with approval for three new genetically modified (GM) crops designed to be sprayed with Dow AgroScience's Enlist Duo herbicide, which contains the Agent Orange component 2,4-D and Roundup's glyphosate chemical.

An announcement issued by the agency on August 6 recommends that three novel varieties of GM corn and soybeans designed to tolerate Enlist Duo be fully deregulated, claiming that the crops do not pose a risk to plant life or other agricultural crops. Citing the Plant Protection Act as a basis, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) says deregulation is the agency's "preferred alternative" for addressing the growing failure of existing GM crops and their respective herbicides.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
The USDA is headed by a former monsanto executive.

Did anyone expect a monsanto executive to do things against monsanto?
Monsanto does not make 24-d. Dow makes their own glyphosate. So in fact, these crops will compete against Monsanto products. Try again???

I like how fear is instilled by the reckless who see the words "a component of agent orange".

Leaving out the actual dangerous components that made agent orange so dreadfully potent.

There are tons of harmless "components", that when combined with more potent "components", make dangerous combinations.

As far as whether the US farmers desire to have more gm crop choices, I frankly have no idea. All I know is that 2-4D has been used for around 70 years on farms everywhere around the world.

Personally for me farming up here in Canada, I see little need for more gm crops resistant to herbicides. We have good choice already. But in glyphosate addicted farm country in the states, maybe weed resistance to glyphosate alone issues are coming to roost??? Y'all need more crop rotation down there. Soybean/corn is not a rotation enough, IMO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
I wonder that by combining the two herbicides if other toxic chemicals are formed?
2-4D and glyphosate mixes have been used successfully by farmers for decades. No new chemical is made by mixing, they simply offer a more broad spectrum of weed control than either can control alone, by working in tandem. One is a group nine, the other is a group 4. By rotating and or using multiple groups, weed resistance is not as likely as using on or the other alone...
 

·
zone 5 - riverfrontage
Joined
·
6,818 Posts
Monsanto does not make 24-d. Dow makes their own glyphosate. So in fact, these crops will compete against Monsanto products. Try again???

I like how fear is instilled by the reckless who see the words "a component of agent orange".

Leaving out the actual dangerous components that made agent orange so dreadfully potent.

There are tons of harmless "components", that when combined with more potent "components", make dangerous combinations.

As far as whether the US farmers desire to have more gm crop choices, I frankly have no idea. All I know is that 2-4D has been used for around 70 years on farms everywhere around the world.

Personally for me farming up here in Canada, I see little need for more gm crops resistant to herbicides. We have good choice already. But in glyphosate addicted farm country in the states, maybe weed resistance to glyphosate alone issues are coming to roost??? Y'all need more crop rotation down there. Soybean/corn is not a rotation enough, IMO.
You are welcome to fear anything you wish to fear. No clue why fear is a component of your post.

If you wish to fear Agent Orange, that is entirely your choice.



The OP was about GMO.


The USDA is ran by monsanto and remains being ran by monsanto.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
You are welcome to fear anything you wish to fear. No clue why fear is a component of your post.

If you wish to fear Agent Orange, that is entirely your choice.



The OP was about GMO.


The USDA is ran by monsanto and remains being ran by monsanto.
And the technology in question is headed up by Dow, a Monsanto competitor. Yet Monsanto is behind this all??? That is what I fail to understand???
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
oh come on dale...you are not that naive....it dont matter if its monsanto,dow or a corp called bluemoon gmo of utah(made up name)...its all the same...they produce and push gmo and chemicals...thats the bottom line....every time one corp gets an advance in legislation/rules etc. they all benefit from it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
If dow gets a gm crop passed, after the rigorous testing that occurs before this can take place, it does nothing to help Monsanto. It steals acres and revenue from Monsanto. Companies in business competing, do not generally back their competition if a revenue stream will be in peril.

Am I missing something here? It would be like me telling my neighbor, "Here, I have some prime farmland, why don't you farm it for a decade, and I will sit on the sidelines and cheer you on..."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,246 Posts
Someday when we have concrete proof if it is or is not safe, who here will admit they were wrong. Or will it be like the people who worshiped king G.W. Bush or current dictator B.O. and go to their grave still thinking they were great.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
2-4D and glyphosate mixes have been used successfully by farmers for decades. No new chemical is made by mixing, they simply offer a more broad spectrum of weed control than either can control alone, by working in tandem. One is a group nine, the other is a group 4. By rotating and or using multiple groups, weed resistance is not as likely as using on or the other alone...
Ok, how many decades? As an example, cigarettes were "safe" for decades, until they weren't. I also recall hearing about how "weeds" would not become Round up resistant. Now it is a given.

Part of the point, depending on HOW much research and who funded the resesrch, what may be labeled safe, may in fact have far reaching term effects that either were not known or not allowed to be known. Another example, feeding animal protein to herbivores, oppsy, brain tissue got in the feed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
As far as Dow and Monsanto, have you ever checked who sits on their boards? Iirc, it has some commonality, or used to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
Ok, how many decades? As an example, cigarettes were "safe" for decades, until they weren't. I also recall hearing about how "weeds" would not become Round up resistant. Now it is a given.

Part of the point, depending on HOW much research and who funded the resesrch, what may be labeled safe, may in fact have far reaching term effects that either were not known or not allowed to be known. Another example, feeding animal protein to herbivores, oppsy, brain tissue got in the feed.

24-d has been used on farms since the 1940's. Glyphosate since the 70's. As far as weed resistant weeds, it is not the fault of a herbicide. It is the farmers fault for not rotating crops and herbicides properly. Weed resistance has been a potential reality since herbicides were first used. It is not a new phenomenon, contrary to popular belief. I do not have and will never have weed resistance on my farm, because I follow rotations of both crops and herbicide groups. So no, resistance is not a given. Unless the farmer is repetetive in his herbicide group use. And it is his own fault if he ends up with resistant weeds. To any herbicide. It is not just a glyphosate issue.

As far as safety, always remember the poison is in the dose. Most folks have no idea how little actual product is applied these days on an acre of land. Fewer have a clue about what happens to herbicides when applied to plants or soil. Instead, we hear the words, "doused", "Poured", or using poisons, in most popular "organic" type articles one reads these days. When in fact, an acre may get a few grams an acre of herbicide.

Bottom line is our food supply has never been more safe, more steady and reliable, and more environmentally conscious. Contrary to most of what you read these days, that is the truth.
 

·
The Prairie Homemaker
Joined
·
2,974 Posts
You know, wanting to eat food as God made it, does not equal fear.
The thing that bothers me is the gov saying I have no right to have the choice.
Which they do by refusing to insist on labeling gmo food or not gmo food as such.
If organic food producers must jump through hoops to label their food all natural, gmo producers should HAVE to label their foods as gmo foods.
I am not afraid of gmo. I just want the choice.
If I am not given that choice then I will go totally organic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
You know, wanting to eat food as God made it, does not equal fear.
The thing that bothers me is the gov saying I have no right to have the choice.
Which they do by refusing to insist on labeling gmo food or not gmo food as such.
If organic food producers must jump through hoops to label their food all natural, gmo producers should HAVE to label their foods as gmo foods.
I am not afraid of gmo. I just want the choice.
If I am not given that choice then I will go totally organic.
You do have the choice. As you mentioned, it is called "organic". Of course "organic" farmers fight to have their food labelled and jump through hoops: They can then charge exorbitant prices based upon good feelings. But if you label my canola oil gm, the cost would be mine, and the label would be false, because oil does not contain protein, therefore there is no gm material in it. The perception of a label, even after being rigourously tested for decades, ( No other food items have been tested so much as gm crops, no not even "organic" foods have been) is just that: a perception. If consumers were truly informed, they would already know at a quick glance at the ingredients, if the product in their hands may contain gm ingredients.

And there is the rub: consumers are not informed, and have never been LESS informed about where their food comes from. How can I dare say this? Until recent history, nearly everyone had ties to the actual farm producing the crops or stock, so they could at the least visit grandpas farm and see what went on. But in today's society, few have much of a farm tie, and so they rely not on actual farmers for information, but they rely sadly on the internet to show them what happens on farms today. Rather than have a chance to visit a farm in real life, they visit it online, trusting things like Food Inc. and other such poor "documentaries" to inform them.

Some argue consumers have never been so informed. I argue they have never been less informed, due to the nearly complete disconnect of society to actual working farms. Just because the internet says we "douse" our crops in "pesticides", or our soil is dying, does not make it true.

Heck, even my sisters who grew up on this very farm, after 20 years of having left, have little idea of what goes on here, simply because they have no skin in the game, and farming is always changing...

I feel bad about this disconnect. I feel worse that of all the places on the web, a homesteading forum has so much disconnect and often anger and misunderstanding of farming today.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
i have plenty of skin in the game...my life....my decisions.

care to explain monsanto protection act?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,772 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-pro...ng-things-know-about-hr-933-provision-1156079

'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. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.
But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.
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.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top