Organic Farming Illegal in America

[Razor Sharp]

Great videos Rogue, I learned a few things today

GMO foods cant be confirmed as fit or unfit for longterm consumption due to simple lack of data. We agree there. However that really does not make me any more comfortable being their guinea pig. I will go back to the science in a second as I want to address a few ethical issues not fully covered by the videos:

For starters, the whole premise behind genetic modification funded by corporate interest is a recipe for certain disaster. These people are tampering with forces of nature at levels never before known in history, and they believe they can flawlessly predict the outcome/impact of these experiments in the wild. This is not only foolish, but terrible irresponsible.

For example, Monsanto and other GM companies were 100% convinced that their crops would co-exist with native crops without any contamination.

WOOPSIES!

• Rice Farmer awarded 500,000 after GM infected 80% of his crops
• Canola transgenic plants escaping and interbreeding
• Mexican Corn contaminated from 60 miles away
• Bayer sued by thousands of farmers for contaminated crops

This is what happens when you try to condense hundreds of years of evolution into one life cycle. Nature's pace is slow and careful for a reason! Even worse now is that some of these mutations have made their way to crop-killing superweeds which are also now resistant to herbicides and destroying the very crops which were supposed to yield such incredible harvests. Gee, didn't see that one coming!

But let's ignore the serious fumbles made here and look at a deeper issue. I actually watched all of the videos you posted and while these people were discussing the genetics I felt they made one dangerous assumption.

Noble Intent

These bright eyed youths did not factor human greed into the equation and that's a serious oversight. It would be one thing if GMO companies were only interested in improving the quality of crops. But their #1 interest is PROFIT above all. Consider the case of Monsanto and it's Terminator gene, crops that would yield sterile seeds and force farmers to buy more every year.

When you combine this VERY questionable practice with the unforeseen hiccup of widespread contamination, you start to see a massive disaster unfolding:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008...vatisation-making-seeds-themselves-infertile/

Farmers that once lived well off their land were dealing with crops that would not reproduce. These bunk seeds essentially coerced them all to buy Monsanto seeds at ridiculous prices. Understandably, people were pissed. So pissed that they rallied and put enormous pressure on Monsanto. In 1999 a press conference was held to much fanfare and Monsanto swore it would never use this technology commercially.

Of course by now we know all about the viability of their word.

In 2000, a year after the Monsanto Terminator moratorium announcement, Delta Vice President, Harry Collins, declared at the time in a press interview in the Agra/Industrial Biotechnology Legal Letter, ‘We’ve continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System (TPS or Terminator). We never really slowed down. We’re on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off.’

Nor did their partner, the United States Department of Agriculture, back down on Terminator after 1999. In 2001 the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) website announced: ‘USDA has no plans to introduce TPS into any germplasm…Our involvement has been to help develop the technology, not to assist companies to use it.’ As if to say, ‘see, our hands are clean.’

Then they went on to say the USDA was, ‘committed to making the [Terminator] technology as widely available as possible, so that its benefits will accrue to all segments of society (sic)…ARS intends to do research on other applications of this unique gene control discovery…When new applications are at the appropriate stage of development, this technology will also be transferred to the private sector for commercial application.’ Terminator was alive and well inside the Washington bureaucracy.

In 2001, the USDA and Delta & Pine executed a Commercialization Agreement for Terminator, its infamous Patent No. 5,723,765. The Government and Delta & Pine Land were not at all concerned about worldwide outcry against Terminator.

That announcement came two years after Monsanto had dropped its planned takeover of D&PL, with its Terminator patents.

The world was left with the (misleading) impression that Terminator was dead. Reality was it was anything but dead. Seven years later, long after public outcry against Terminator technology had died down, Monsanto re-entered and bought Delta & Pine Land and its Terminator patents.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3082

In their defense it still has not made its commercial debut. But that patent has now spread GLOBALLY and make no mistake. It's just a matter of time.

All of this really makes you wonder. If these people are so terribly mistaken on their most basic premises, and have demonstrated a steady history of shady business practices.. how much can their health claims be trusted?

Apparently many people in the scientific community are not impressed by their criteria of what is "safe" Example:

We have revealed the inefficiency both of these tests and of their statistical analysis and biological interpretations, for the various reasons detailed above. However, some of the in vivo 90-day tests are not performed any longer today to get worldwide commercial authorizations, especially for GMO with “stacked events” (i.e., producing one or several insecticides and tolerating one or two herbicides), and this is even more seriously inadequate since the so-called “****tail effects” are not taken into consideration.

In the present case, we wish to underline that the commercial GMOs in question contain pesticide residues, some of which have been demonstrated as human cellular endocrine disruptors at levels around 1000 times below their presence in some GM feed. Such Roundup residues are present in more than 80% of edible cultivated GMOs. This does not exclude other possible effects.

Source: http://www.biolsci.org/v06p0590.htm

But that's just the tip of the iceberg! Based on what we see even in short-term history. It doesn;t look too good for GMOs:

• Recorded Deaths from GM
• Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions
• Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links
• Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates
• Superviruses
• Antibiotic Threat Via Milk
• Antibiotic Threat Via Plants
• Resurgence of Infectious Diseases
• Increased Food Allergies
• Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans
• Interior Toxins
• Lowered Nutrition
• No Regulated Health Safety Testing
• Toxicity to Soil
• Soil Sterility and Pollution
• Extinction of Seed Varieties
• Superweeds
• Destruction of Forest Life
• Superpests
• Killing Beneficial Insects
• Poisonous to Mammals
• Genetic Pollution
• Disturbance of Nature's Boundaries
• Decline and Destruction of Self-Sufficient Family Farms
• Less Diversity, Quality, Quantity and Profit
• Fragility of Future Agriculture
• Lower Yields and More Pesticides Used With GM Seeds
• Monopolization of Food Production

Very Detailed Source: http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

From that same article:

"...The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died.

Let me put it this way. If GMOs are authorized worldwide, what guarantee do we have that in 20 years, if some serious longterm adverse effects are discovered, that the original plants will be available to us? With all the contamination issues it doesn't look very promising frankly.

This level of genetic manipulation should only happen in a laboratory. It does not belong in the field and it certainly does not belong on my dinner plate! The way I understand it people are paid to undergo clinical trials. But these crooks get free testing because most folks dont even know they are eating GMs. Sure is nice to have the FDA in your pocket!

Like I said, the whole thing stinks. We are letting corporate interests trump COMMON F*CKING SENSE!

</rant>

 

[Rogue]

I actually watched all of the videos you posted and while these people were discussing the genetics I felt they made one dangerous assumption.

Noble Intent

These bright eyed youths did not factor human greed into the equation and that's a serious oversight. It would be one thing if GMO companies were only interested in improving the quality of crops. But their #1 interest is PROFIT above all.

Cynicism doesn't necessarily equate with insight. If you want to talk about financial motivations, it is within a company's best interests to conduct comprehensive testing to avoid the ass raping expenses and public relations damage of recalls; not only in terms of wasted product but lost future profits (at least for awhile) from evaporated consumer confidence in their products. They also have the personal motivation that they, their friends, their family will inescapably be eating their product, some how some way, whether at the dining room table or casual dining in a restaurant—kinda like how doctors are motivated to find cures and treatments for diseases because they and their beloved families will inescapably become terminally ill.

The context of the discussion were graduate students explaining and evaluating the scientific aspects of genetic engineering. In academia, your scope of discussion is limited to context. As a graduate student points out, specific methodologies should be individually evaluated, and as the website of the World Health Organization points out, the safety of specific foods should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This is why discussions should not proverbially paint the whole issue with one or two brushes. I don't believe your characterization of the graduate students as 'bright eyed youths' who 'did not factor human greed into the equation.' For one, it was a scientific discussion and greed would have been grossly inappropriately immature for the context; they explain some flaws in the regulatory system but regulation, beyond brief mention, was beyond the scope of their discussion and most appropriate for politics. I'm sure they would agree the regulatory system could benefit from adjustments. Secondly, why else would they have an entire segment on ethics if they did not implicitly know about the potential harm of greed? These were very brilliant graduate students, not middle school kids giving a presentation in science class with students passing love notes while their teacher wasn't looking.

 

[ArcBound]

• Canola transgenic plants escaping and interbreeding

Nature has its own systems that we always forget to account for when we fvck with the normal order of things. For example some plants spread because birds eat the seed, then travel far away and deposit the seed which then begins to grow. No matter how many borders you put on plant land some will still get out.

It's very similar to bringing in other insects or animals to deal with existing pests only to have the newly brought in animals completely wreck the ecosystem and natural order of things in ways we didn't expect.

 

[Razor Sharp]

Cynicism doesn't necessarily equate with insight

A healthy dose of cynicism can be insightful if it helps foresee/eliminate problems before they happen. Damage control is only effective if you are able to see a few steps ahead. This takes vision too.

As far as the context of my response you will notice that I broke it into two sections. One for ethics and another for science. The ethics bit was to elaborate on certain topics that I felt were not covered. If I had been in that audience maybe they would have.

Didn't mean to paint these kids as being immature or naive. They are obviously brilliant minds, but with that trait often comes the burden of know-it-allism. You can already see them touched by the same academic arrogance which leads scientists to make wild promises that nature can't keep or agree with. The point where that guy casually said you could splice jellyfish genes into a tomato and it would be safe - or even the process itself of using a bacterial disease to inject genes in the DNA chain as if it were the equivalent of swapping pollen. No big deal, we know what we are doing and nothing could possibly go wrong... hmm where have I heard that one before?

Not condemning the actual science and experimentation of GMOs here. I think it is fascinating and certainly has its uses, but there is no way in hell it should be implemented on such a large scale with so many blanks left to fill in.

Of course this only constitutes the moral/ethical portion of my rant. I notice you did not respond to any of the scientific content I posted. Dead fetuses? Altered DNA? Testicles turning blue? Yikes man.

If you recall the root of this debate was you postulating that GMOs are indeed safe. I'm curious what your thoughts are now after reading those links.

Some parting thoughts:

When you really break it down, the modus operandi behind most of these modifications are really made moot by organic farming.

The majority of these crops are being engineered to resist toxic pesticides and little more. Going organic completely eliminates the need for this resistance (or the potential risks that come with it). You could argue that GMOs have greater yield due to a lack of pests, but when you factor in superweeds, unforeseen effects on soil, beneficial insects and such, one starts to wonder if it really adds up to greater yields or even profitability.

It seems like we are experimenting for the sake of experimentation, instead of working to solve problems pragmatically. The end result of such brashness often results in new, more complicated problems to solve if we are not careful. For pete's sake we don't even know that these practices are sustainable over a long period of time. We only got one planet, why gamble it's future on the educated hunch of a species infamous for it's capacity to err?

I guess the crux of my issue with scientists in this context is the idea that man is somehow wiser in his few decades of life than the forces that created him over millennia. It's great to make such incredible strides in our understanding, but some humility must be kept at all times because the world is filled with more knowledge, information and mystery than our puny minds could possibly grasp in its entirety.

It also deserves mentioning that the organic stuff just tastes better. Example: GMO strawberries taste like water and emit very little odor. You can smell organic strawberries from another room and the taste is much sweeter and richer. They taste like.. STRAWBERRIES. Yet another telltale sign of mother nature's wisdom.

Nature has its own systems that we always forget to account for when we fvck with the normal order of things.

That's exactly what i'm saying. I'm not against progress or taking the evolutionary ball and running with it. But I think we can do that in ways that are more harmonious with the systems that make life possible in the first place.

Great discussion so far (even if it is me doin most of the yappin.. does that make me a narcissist? )

 

[Rogue]

Of course this only constitutes the moral/ethical portion of my rant. I notice you did not respond to any of the scientific content I posted. Dead fetuses? Altered DNA? Testicles turning blue? Yikes man.

I didn't respond because, like I said from the onset, I don't have sufficient time to invest in this subject at the moment. It normally takes me six-eight weeks of research and writing to Dish™ out a stellar in-depth post/essay. For the sake of this discussion I spent a little time digging around, but I have much higher priorities like graphic design and research on the evolution of human empathy (for hopeful publication in a major scientific magazine) to focus on. I don't back down from intellectual topics but I do have time restraints.

 

[Bible_Belt]

• Lower Yields and More Pesticides Used With GM Seeds

The "lower yields" part is suspect, at least if they are talking about corn, wheat, and soybeans. As a farmer, higher yield is the entire point of choosing gmo. I get to see Monsanto's newest stuff growing every summer simply by living near a lot of farmland. GMO strains might be mutants, but they certainly grow and produce like mutants as well. Try some gardening yourself, and you can appreciate how difficult it is to get a food crop to grow well. GMO might be bad in many ways for the planet, but at least from the farmer's perspective, the yield advantage of GMO is tremendous.

Also, most GMO is Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds. They actually use less pesticide, but a ton of RoundUp, which is their herbicide. It kills grass and weeds, not bugs. There is some marginal environmental benefit, believe it or not, because it is a no-till method of farming and does not promote soil erosion that comes with tilling. However, we are still soaking the countryside in poison, which likely has other consequences. The other popular GMO crop is corn which has been modified to be toxic to worms. That product also reduces pesticide use.

 

[Razor Sharp]

@Rogue, understood. Looking forward to what you manage to uncover. Do give some thought to what I mentioned about pragmatic solutions and let sustainable, organic practices be your devil's advocate.

@Bible, The article does go into detail there:

Some high technology agriculture does offer higher single crop yields. But organic farming techniques, with many different seeds interplanted between rows, generally offer higher per acre yields. This applies best to the family farm, which feeds the majority of the Third World. It differs from the large-scale, monocrop commercial production of industrialized nations. Even for commercial fields, results are questionable. In a study of 8,200 field trials, Roundup Ready soybeans produced fewer bushels of soy than non-GM (Charles Benbrook study, former director Board of Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences). The average yield for non-GM soybeans was 51.21 bushels per acre; for GM soybeans it was 49.26. This was again confirmed in a study at the University of Nebraska's Institute of Agricultural Resources

I have only worked at organic farms, so my perspective is not as complete. I can say that there are a myriad of ways to increase yields AND enrich the soil over time (magnetically activated water, crop rotation/diversity, enriched organic compost, use of golden ratio geometry, etc)

It's also worth mentioning that organic agriculture uses ZERO chemical pesticides, which is far superior to "less pesticide"

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's also worth mentioning that organic agriculture uses ZERO chemical pesticides, which is far superior to "less pesticide"

Well, sorta.

http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CoopExt/4dmg/VegFruit/organic.htm

If we think organic gardening means vegetables free of any chemical pesticides, we don't have the story quite right.

Organic gardeners can use certain pesticides -- chemicals that are derived from botanical and mineral-bearing sources. These chemicals may be highly toxic, but they break down more rapidly than common chemicals, such as the Sevins, Malathions and 2,4,Ds.


fwiw, I have been using Sevin all my life. We put it on everything in the garden as well as outdoor dogs sometimes to kill fleas and ticks. I typically apply it with bare hands, and probably breathe some of the dust while applying. My grandparents have been doing the same thing for 50 years. My problem with the "all organic all the time" thinking is that I don't see the harm in chemicals like Sevin.

Also, as ridiculous as this is, it's my understanding that aquaponics does not fall under the government definition of "organic," mostly because we use Canada's definition, and they never bothered to include aquaculture. Using fish water as a nitrogen source is as organic as it gets in my opinion.

 

[Razor Sharp]

Interesting BB, we never used any Sevin - mostly a combination of natural pesticides:

http://www.livingwithbugs.com/diatomaceous.html
http://www.livingwithbugs.com/spinosad.html
http://www.livingwithbugs.com/insecticidal_soap.html
http://www.discoverneem.com/

The old fella who ran the joint had a few of his own concoctions too, mostly blends of citric acids with strong antiseptics (garlic, ginger, etc) Tobacco water worked great for our spider mites (hate those bastards!)

Natural predators were also a big help. Lady bugs, predatory mites, sh*t we even put up a little bat house up cause those guys are awesome bug hunters, and their crap makes excellent fertilizer. Few things are more satisfying than nourishing your plants with the digested remains of your pests. The earth-bound vermin we kept at bay with several electronic owls that had motion sensors (their heads turn in the direction of movement) Whatever they missed, our cats would gladly take care of.

Sure some critters will always get through defenses, but in a small operation it's definitely manageable and at the end of the day, once you've set everything up it's actually less work than going the conventional route. Nature's little helpers really do go a long way

 

[Bible_Belt]

Cool stuff. I can tell you have experience.

I was excited about diatomaceous earth, but never got it to work very well. Soap and neem will kill whatever you hit with it, but most plants don't like the residue buildup. Some instructions I have read will tell you to wash the stuff off with water after it dries.

As far as spider mites go, we tried the predator mites and they work in the short term, but tend to starve to death before the last of the spider mite eggs hatch. My best experiences have honestly been with using the most toxic chemicals that I can find. That's the inherent dilemma - no one wants toxic chemicals on their food, but at the same time, no one will buy food that has been chewed on by bugs. I have spent a lot of hours chopping the buggy ends off sweet corn ears. No one will buy corn with worms, but everyone will buy corn with the worms cut out.

People tend to think that farmers are not that bright, but agriculture can save us all. Algae as a fuel is the next big biofuel. The Germans have already flown a passenger jet off algae-derived fuel. Unlike corn, algae will grow almost anywhere, so if we get good enough at turning it into fuel, then we won't need oil any more. Despite all of our cynicism, I really think that could actually happen.

 

[Razor Sharp]

The predator mites have proven to be a temporary solution for me as well, best used for wiping out a full-on infestation. They have voracious appetites and eventually they always die off. I look at it as an investment in the soil - not only do they kill pests, but their decaying bodies enrich the soil.

The tobacco/citric acid solution worked very well against any remaining mites. 1 tablespoon of natural tobacco (bonus if you can find the actual leaves) and soak it in 2-3 liters of water overnight with orange, lemon and lime peels and a tiny drop of soap. Spray liberally. Takes a while to get just the right proportion of ingredients but it does work!

Diatomaceous is tricky because it only effective when its dry, so you have to plan it around the weather. Once you do get a feel for this, it is very effective.

We used Neem on everything except for leafy plants (lettuce, kale, etc) and fruit with thin skin (berries, plums, etc), as it definitely does leave a residue behind which can be absorbed if you are not careful.

 

[ArcBound]

This is an old thread but I'm just bumping it because a lot of new studies have came about in the last two years about our favorite GMO company Monsanto:

http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/...ce-europe-ban-after-french-study-links-cancer

Monsanto GMO's has been linked to increased cancer rates and other GMO's have been linked to disappearing bees.