Nasa says no global warming

Hungary banns all gmo's and is working on eradicating all GMO frankengenes from its environment

GOOOO Hungary, Actually most European countries have banned or seriously restrict these "super" foods as you call them, because of all the known health issues that the US FDA is paid to ignore.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-gmo-corn-fields.aspx?e_cid=20110814_SNL_MT_1

this link is well worth looking at, there is a chart of just a few of the known side effects of these frankenfoods that should be a wake up call for anyone who's interested in staying healthy

 

Good for Hungary.

 

Whats really funny in a twisted kinda way is that many Monsanto executives are ordering Monsanto's GM foods out of there own cafeteria's. When the employee's won't even eat it, you know something it up.

I'm getting a little off subject but these "super" foods are actually more like frankengenes that are going to be really hard to eradicate from the system. Fortunately more and more countries are realizing the importance of the effort.

This article mentions how the last two white house administrations refused to serve GM foods as well as some very interesting stuff on Monsanto's own top executives refusal to eat it either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-obamas-food-safety-t_b_178127.html

 

Yes, but similar effects can occur without GM.

If you pull out weeds by hand, you might also create "super-weeds",
i.e. weeds with deeper roots will survive and pass on their genes to
the next generation.

An old paper by Joel Brown titled "Honey, I Shrunk the Cod" describes how
some fish harvesting strategies can, despite the best of intentions,
induce a decrease in the size of adult fish within a few generations.

A colleague and I came up with an idea for getting rid of blue-green algae.
Pump the surface layer of water containing the algae downwards, and
keep them in low or no light for 24 hours. That would kill most of them.
Unfortunately, the process would also act as a kind of filter in which the
most buoyant algae would rise to the surface and survive into the next
generation.

If you set yourself up as a predator, your prey will evolve to avoid you!

I find Monsanto's methods deceptive and grotesque, but so are the tactics
of people who use pathetic emotive terms like "frankengene" in an attempt
to scare people off all GM foods.

 

frankengene pretty well covers it, look at what happened with starlink corn, one of the first GM foods to hit the market. It wasn't even approved for human consumption yet but its wind born pollen "contaminated" almost the entire US corn crop in the first year it was introduced. They ended up approving it without testing at all. Thats not a scare tactic, those are the basic facts, but it is dam scary.

its kinda the definition of frankengene

while I agree completely that we effect our environment whatever we do, splicing insect genes or reptile genes or pesticide enzymes or whatever into a tomato is bound to cause problems. And surprise surprise turns out its causing enough problems that even Monsanto's own employees won't eat the stuff.

Thats not being emotional, its being informed.

I'm glad you took the time to look at the article tho and thrilled that we basically agree on the issue but I'm curious what GM foods you are referring to when you suggest some of them are safe?

I go off on climate cause climate is directly related to boating and my eventual return to the water, but GMO's are kinda a whole other subject so I've not mentioned it before. I'm in a group called 1 million strong to ban GMO's. We keep each other pretty well informed so if you believe there are safe GMO's I'd be curious to know which ones you think are OK.

cheers
B

 

getting back to CO2 being just plant food here are some brief excerpts on the effects of increased CO2 on plant biology

 

The ones that are most absolutely not Ok are the those that over the last 15 years have caused wide-scale deaths, diseases and/or disabilities.

In its present state, the public GMO debate seems to be between Frankengenes and a mob of ignorant villagers with flaming torches and pitchforks.

There are too many duplicitous, perverters of science on both sides.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4&feature=youtu.be

there's one in every crowd, but it shouldn't preclude us from crying fowl when someone like Monsanto comes along and ends up having so much sway over the FDA that it can push through untested GMO's which end up proving themselves as harmful as there products have.

It should be criminal and it probably is but its not likely that unless people stand up and refuse to eat it that anything will be done. What is interesting about the legalities tho is that there is a geneticist who worked for monsanto coming out and saying he and other scientists he worked with have been warning them for years about this stuff.

I just read a few articles on it the other day and then it popped up on the news
CNN I think but I'll see if I can find it for you

nope
but if I stumble across it I'll post

 

another little jewel about these GM crops is they are not only getting resistant weeds but resistant insects as well, and there are financial issues where in the end the GMO crops cost far more to grow for the farmer than its worth.

you might also find it interesting that about 250,000 organic farmers have filed suet against monsanto over this cross contamination issue, basically the frankengenes are impossible to keep out of there organic crops, which makes them worthless in much of the marketplace

http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/07/270000-organic-farmers-sue-monsanto/

 

And good luck to them against the Monsanto juggernaut. Of course, there are a lot of very dodgy "organic" farmers too.

You didn't mention how many deaths, diseases and disabilities have so far been attributed to GM foods and crops.

I take your point about some (how many?) Monsanto employees refusing to eat food at their staff cafe, but that's just an anecdote masquerading as data at this point.

Similarly with one former Monsanto scientist saying they are up to no good. I bet there are more than a few disgruntled ex-employees with a grudge against that heavy-handed company. But again, that's just as likely to be personal, and not much of a score against GM foods.

 

obviously your playing devils advocate here, which I appreciate as it gives me a chance to provide the information needed. There is a chart with links in one of the articles I presented concerning the known diseases associated with GM foods. Also the law suet is ( of course ) a class action with the organic farmers association at the helm. My bet is that they have a chance. Even a monster like monsanto has an Achilles heal and those guys are playing such dirty pool that they are not exactly going into court smelling like a rose. I'd give it say 50/50 but then again I'm dead set against them so maybe I'm just being optimistic

 

I found this article in the BBC this morning and thought it would bring the topic back to Rapid Global Climate Shift pretty easily.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14685612

what the article fails to mention and something that is of critical importance is that if there is really such a dramatic loss in mosquito populations over such wide areas then there is a corresponding loss in the species that depend on them, fish for instance depend heavily on mosquito larvae as do many wading birds. There is a lot more going on than just the loss of one noxious species.

 

ahahahaahahahaahahahaahhaa

they won the law suet

http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html

HIP HIP HOORAY

HIP HIP HOORAY

HIP HIP HOORAY

 

"Prof Meyrowitsch added: "Other scientists are saying they can't test their drugs because there are no children left with malaria."

Sounds ideal, but as you say ..... the ecosystems are suffering.

And following the GM story ..

Given that GM crops are an attempt to increase world food production for the millions (albeit with 'side effects' )


... I propose that the whole question boils down to a choice of

a) Lots of people (high population) propping up the 'natural systems' as best they can, and hoping it doesn't end in a large reduction in population due to the natural systems failing dramatically.

b) Dramatic drop in population so that the 'natural systems' can recover, and the remaining people can live lives of ummm ..... simple agrarian subsistence.


Hang on - A will produce B ???

So the real question is "Will it happen quickly enough ?" before the 'natural' systems are too far gone.

Boston - you should be promoting Mansanto and the like, so that the system fails quicker before the untouched parts of the ecosystem get wrecked as well !!!

 

Very dangerous using genetically modified organisms. Lets hope cool heads are in control.