|
ModestMouse
IM WALKIN ON SUNSHINE



Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 19,227
Loc: Upstate
|
|
Quote:
peace of mind 1 said: Forgot the credentials? Are you applying for a job?

Fuck off credentials are the proper term.
What I find confusing is you made a thread to ask if you could make a thread.
-------------------- Anyone got a lowpass filter in this biiiiash?
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
|
Quote:
morrowasted said:
Quote:
Shroomism said:
Quote:
morrowasted said: Not sure I understand this thread. Are you asking for permission to talk about GMO products?
I think GMO is great. I think it's ridiculous that people love science except when it is used to make their food better. I would love it someone artificially GM'd shrooms to make them better.
That'd be great if GMOs were actually better, but most aren't.
in general they feed more people per acre and are more resistant to pests that makes them better in my opinion
Really? Where'd these facts come from? Cause they aren't true. Yeah, that's exactly what the GMO companies SAY to try and sell them to us. But that's simply not true.
Quote:
Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.
The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the worlds burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.
The reality: Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to world hunger. GMO farming practices are not sustainable. Farmers who plant GMOs are not able to save their seeds from year to year due to patent infringement and poor fertility in the seeds. Therefore, after getting the first year of good harvests, the following year they must continue buying seeds, leading to perpetual debt and enough financial despair in India (the Bt Cotton scandal [6]) that an Indian farmer took his own life every 30 minutes, after becoming the indentured servant of Monsanto and drowning in insurmountable debt. Well over a quarter of a million farmers died by suicide before the country banned the sale of Bt cotton seeds [7].
Real Change News [8]agrees that biotech farming methods are not the answer to world hunger. They recommend “agroecology”:
Numerous reports from nonprofit, governmental and international organizations have concluded that food can be produced sustainably by bringing ecological principles to agriculture through a practice known as agroecology. The practice supports small-scale, traditional methods of farming and promotes crop diversity over a single-food crop, often referred to as a monoculture. Practicing agroecology also enables farmers to become independent and self-sufficient producers of natural, healthy foods.
Quote:
9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world. Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists' 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined." The report noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable." They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability. On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
Quote:
Myth #3: GMOs need less pesticide spraying.
Monsanto claims that their Bt products require less spraying. It’s right HERE on their website:
Crops with a Bt trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae. Bt proteins have long been used as topical sprays in conventional and organic agriculture because they are effective and can be used safely. Crops that are genetically engineered to carry the Bt trait allow farmers to protect their crops while eliminating or significantly decreasing the amount of pesticides sprayed.
The reality: Unfortunately, the best laid schemes of mice, men, and Monsanto often go awry. The Cornucopia Institute reports that was true for the first couple of years, but then use of pesticides and herbicides increased dramatically. (This, of course, resulted in a hefty profit for the producers of those chemicals who are…yep, you guessed it, Monsanto and the other biotech companies who produce the seeds.)
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption [11] of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study [12] by Washington State University [13]research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto [14]MON +2.23% [14]‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
Quote:
3. GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant"―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in "superweeds," resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002
--------------------
|
The Doobie Dude


Registered: 04/28/13
Posts: 13,498
|
|
Has no one watched Jurrasic Park? If you play God you're going to get burned!
--------------------
"There are a million reasons to drink and one just popped into my head. If a man can't drink when he's living how the Hell can he drink when he's dead?" - Irish Limerick I PLURed once because it was PLUR or die. - D.M.T.
|
KamikazeKush
A Most Curious Explorer



Registered: 12/03/13
Posts: 622
Loc: Azeroth mostly
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
|
|
Pretty sure were over due for a mass extinction anyways so fuck it \m/
-------------------- A Man Said to the Universe: “Sir, I exist!” “However,” replied the universe, “The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.” -Stephen Crane
|
teamkiller
ghetto drama whore


Registered: 06/06/11
Posts: 8,806
Last seen: 22 days, 2 hours
|
|
GMOs are totally fine ... if you're poor.
If you can afford to eat organic, you probably should since all the rich and powerful have chosen to eat organic. If you're rich, no one will attend your dinner parties (like, for instance none of the 3 most recent presidential families) if you chose to serve totally fine GMO food.
--------------------
|
PhylumPro
Stranger
Registered: 07/23/14
Posts: 6
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
|
Originally I was asking if it would be allowed to start a thread about using organic materials for grows( Instead of store bought materials with modified ingredients). I know that libel laws are pretty intense and just wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking any forum rules by starting the thread.
And ty shroomism for that information, I think that the people who are saying that GMO's are good and that they support them are just misinformed, or not informed at all for that matter. But someone may hear something on the news or read a magazine and believe what they see without doing any digging or information hunting on their own. That is what leads to the vast majority of BLIND people...
Edited by PhylumPro (07/26/14 04:53 PM)
|
blackdust


Registered: 02/28/09
Posts: 8,327
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
morrowasted said: Not sure I understand this thread. Are you asking for permission to talk about GMO products?
I think GMO is great. I think it's ridiculous that people love science except when it is used to make their food better.
most of them are chemtrailers and holistic medicine nutters too, they dont love science, they love pseudoscience and simply believe it's science because someone wore a lab coat and claimed to be a doctor
I always thought we have been GMO our food for thousands of years. Why is it bad now? and how would one not get GMO food?
|
Webster10
Up like Trump



Registered: 12/03/13
Posts: 9,966
Loc: Strawberry Fields
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
blackdust said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
morrowasted said: Not sure I understand this thread. Are you asking for permission to talk about GMO products?
I think GMO is great. I think it's ridiculous that people love science except when it is used to make their food better.
most of them are chemtrailers and holistic medicine nutters too, they dont love science, they love pseudoscience and simply believe it's science because someone wore a lab coat and claimed to be a doctor
I always thought we have been GMO our food for thousands of years. Why is it bad now? and how would one not get GMO food?

What?
--------------------
|
teamkiller
ghetto drama whore


Registered: 06/06/11
Posts: 8,806
Last seen: 22 days, 2 hours
|
|
she's trying to say breeding plants is the same as cutting out dna in a lab and splicing it, even though the changes people have issue with aren't even close to what breeding accomplishes.
--------------------
|
Webster10
Up like Trump



Registered: 12/03/13
Posts: 9,966
Loc: Strawberry Fields
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
teamkiller said: she's trying to say breeding plants is the same as cutting out dna in a lab and splicing it, even though the changes people have issue with aren't even close to what breeding accomplishes.
I thought she was implying something along the lines of that.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
Shroomism said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002
these claims are from one man working for big organic apparently, what are his credentials, economics. is there some reason he couldnt publish his findings in a US science journal?
"according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University."
Chuck Benbrook earned a B.A. degree in economics from Harvard University in 1971, and M.A. and PhD degrees in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979/1980.
|
|