Organic Farming Illegal in America

[Razor Sharp]

How the hell am I JUST finding out about this law which was passed last year? Damn I have to be behind the curve if those weasels at Fox News are reporting this

The Report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtLGuOQemnQ&feature=related

Basically this law (HR 875 which you can read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875) states that organic farming is against the law and people will be prosecuted. The messy part is that they do not distinguish between large or small operations. If you are growing tomatoes in your backyard right now, technically you are breaking the law.

Police raided a small produce market in California with guns drawn. You'd think there was f*cking heroine or some sh*t, but, no.. the culprits were only selling carrots, potatoes, etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27EFldZ17k

And... Europe is next. They are already planning to ban all medicinal herbs in 2011
http://gaia-health.com/articles301/...es-big-win-medicinal-herbs-disappear-eu.shtml

All of this is part of a global initiaive called Codex Alimentarius you can google it or just watch this video which breaks it down: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634#

This is sheer f*cking insanity and I'm curious what my fellow men have to say about these laws and events. Have you heard of this? Am I living under a rock here?

 

[f283000]

Conspiracy theorists have been warning about this for years. Only when things smack you in the face do you people start paying attention to those that know what's going on.

The new world order is coming.

 

[j0n24]

wow thats retarded.

So its illegal to grow crops now on your OWN land YET people are still selling seeds in packets.....wow.

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-875

Read your own link. It was never close to becoming law. The bill died in committee. Now that the Republicans took the House, it is almost certainly a dead issue. I do agree that the bill was a horrible idea, but that's probably why it never became law.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Yeah I remember hearing about this on facebook and its complete bull. The bill does not actually ban organic farming, though small farmers would suffer to a degree as a result, but the main idea behind it is to make farming safer. It def. never passed anyway.

Organic produce is a humongous market that has been growing exponentially for the last two decades, the feds would never ban it. If that happened there would be an enormous outcry by the public and the farmers and companies that make millions off organic food. I've been buying organic for years because I legitimately believe it is better for you and the environment. Your body can only filter out so many chemicals, so its best to consume as little as possible. Haven't noticed a difference in availability.

This bill is the same ridiculous conspiracy crap peddled by the type of people who believe the illuminati are trying to create a new world order to control the entire globe under one government.

 

[Razor Sharp]

It's baaaaaack

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...l-could-be-very-dangerous-for-the-u-s-economy

They vote on this TOMORROW. How much you wanna bet that not one news network covers it

 

[highconscienceness]

Organic, or let's just call it natural non GMO, is in direct competiton to GMO-based farming. Mom/pap don't have the lobbying power that big corporations posses. These corporations are illiminating the competition.

That's one hand.

On the other hand, GMO is population control. It gives ya diabetes, cancer, early death. Ever wondered why there are such low cancer rates in 3rd world countries that use no GMO, only natural.

There is another much more sinister thing at play there. Suppose you know all this information that GMO kills you, slowly. Suppose you decided to farm your own and barter it. Now you can't. Global elites are killing the resistance. It would be criminal now to grow your own produce.


What IS already happening are people being arrested for selling eggs on the side of the road. Search for it, youtube, google.

 

[Rogue]

They vote on this TOMORROW. How much you wanna bet that not one news network covers it.

That's because your story is a non-story. According to a New York Times editorial, the concerns of organic farming were addressed in an amendment. The New York Times cites the Billings Gazette which reports "Federal lawmakers pulled a food safety bill off their menu Thursday, but not before signing off on a compromise amendment to protect small producers. The amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Kay Hagan, D-N.C., makes exceptions for small producers selling their food to local restaurants, grocers or directly to consumers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29schlosser.html?ref=opinion?hp
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_45d8a1ad-76b5-58aa-9d31-6fe257131ba7.html

 

[Buddha_Mind]

This is all a part of trying to give corporate control to more of our food. This in the long run will undercut various vegetable plant's genetic variety and potential and will reduce the diversity of the human diet to a select few monocropped gmo foods.

I've worked on a variety of organic farms. The downside is safety and quality standards vary. But it is the roots of agriculture. The way food is supposed to taste, and every farm I've been on has been an oasis for biological life and local species diversity.

Growing up in the industrialized monocropped fields of the midwest, I can assure you first hand this does everything to extirpate species and decrease diversity while increasing inorganic pollutants. Not to mention the incredible loss of top soil and levels of soil-based nutrients that are not replaced by inorganic fertilizers. (ie, things like chromium, zinc, iron, all are not supplicated in intensive farming and these trace metals and micronutrients are steadily declining in our agribuisness based crops).

Go local, go organic as much as you can. Most of these vegetables have such greater taste.

It is however unfortunate that these big industries and lobbyists are likely going to direct future legislation, and it just goes to show that in America even if something is directly terrible on environmental/social health, if it has the fiscal backing it will pass. People with money who want to make more money take precedent over real implications and negative effects.

 

[Razor Sharp]

@Buddha

@Rogue, I have seen those amendments and they are definitely a BIG improvement over what was initially proposed, especially for really small farmers. Unfortunately the mid-sized farms (a.k.a biggest competition for industrial farms) will be heavily hit with ridiculous regulation fees and random shutdowns by the FDA. The bill extends their authority to crack down on the middle man while letting their massive industrialized buddies hock their genetically modified food and hormone-laced dairy products. Of course why would they when Obamas new Food Czar used to work for Monsanto?

Look, I'm not saying that this bill is not needed, there definitely has to be some regulation/standard in place to ensure safety and minimize contaminations. It's just pretty transparent that this was a bill lobbied by major agricultural players to eliminate their competition.

Either way you slice it, this is definitely NEWS and it's pretty damn suspect that nobody is even mentioning such a highly contested and controversial piece of legislation. The American people have a right to know when sh*t like this is on the table. Where was Fox News before these amendments were made and this bill was a gigantic monster set to devour every small farm in America? Oh that's right they were busy covering what you might consider a "real" news story: http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews....nhaal-and-taylor-swift-are-dating/?test=faces

 

[Rogue]

The bill extends their authority to crack down on the middle man while letting their massive industrialized buddies hock their genetically modified food and hormone-laced dairy products.

I pay attention to scientists and scientific literature, and there's actually no compelling line of scientific evidence that 'organic' foods are any more nutritious, and humans have been genetically modifying food for the past 10,000 years through agricultural methods. You get peace of mind with 'organic' foods, have no doubt, but not much else has been proven except for paying higher premiums for imported 'organic' food. The nuances of scientific issues are always complex and so this is not an issue I have time to invest at the moment, but it is an essay topic I've been meaning to write for some years. Maybe (but no guarantee) someday I will get around to posting an essay on the topic, as I have no doubt it would garner attention.

 

[Razor Sharp]

You know I would listen to what you have to say with an open mind as I really do respect your opinions, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that last statement. It's one thing to alter crops over generations through agricultural means (broccoli is a good example of this), and another entirely to modify them directly at the genome level to resist chemical pesticides and other artificial toxins.

The result of such aggressive tampering has been very poorly tested in the past - with much of the real problems being ignored in favor of rushing to get FDA approval.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

New tests are showing some pretty scary results in animals -organ failure, cancer, permanent intestinal damage, DNA mutation at the cell level and a host of problems scientists are just discovering:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html thats just one example. Google "scientific studies gmo" for plenty more

There is a good reason that much of the scientific community doesn't know about this, and that's because Monsanto strictly forbids testing and publishing of harmful effects in their End User Agreement: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570 If their food is so harmless, why are they covering their asses like this?

It's also worth noting that the same scientists who say GMO crops are safe also claim the bovine antibiotics/hormones in milk are okay too. Yet we are already seeing girls as young as 4 years old around the world getting their periods from drinking this crap. That doesn't sound too safe or healthy to me

As far as the cost of organic, I purchase locally and it's about the same price as conventional veggies, in some cases cheaper. Of course my diet is mostly macrobiotic and part of that philosophy is always eating from your immediate environment, I've eliminated quite a few health problems doing just that. Also my allergies have disappeared since I started eating organic, so that's worth a lot in my book.

Regardless of your opinion (which I am still interested in hearing), this bill poses the biggest threat to freedom in the marketplace. If people want to buy organic, then there should be no laws that cut in on their choices via shady regulations. As it stands a lot of the midsize and larger organic producers will be going out of business in the coming years, just like many of the nations oldest cattle farms have all but vanished due to similar legislation passed years ago.

 

[Kailex]

Looks like I might not be seeing a Farmer's Market in my town next year.

 

[Quiksilver]

I pay attention to scientists and scientific literature, and there's actually no compelling line of scientific evidence that 'organic' foods are any more nutritious, and humans have been genetically modifying food for the past 10,000 years through agricultural methods. You get peace of mind with 'organic' foods, have no doubt, but not much else has been proven except for paying higher premiums for imported 'organic' food. The nuances of scientific issues are always complex and so this is not an issue I have time to invest at the moment, but it is an essay topic I've been meaning to write for some years. Maybe (but no guarantee) someday I will get around to posting an essay on the topic, as I have no doubt it would garner attention.

Genetic Selection (using propagation stock from plants or animals with the desired genetic traits) is much different from Genetic Modification.

Last time I checked, humans in 8,000 B.C. were not splicing insect genes with fish genes, or insect genes with corn genes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwo-g3Xlp6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NM15Is4-h4

I would like labels on food stating whether the genome structure of the food I'm eating has been spliced with genes from other organisms, regardless of the health benefits/consequences.

Is that too much to ask?

 

[synergy1]

^^ read 'Guns Germs and Steel'. It addresses how the cultivation of food differed around the world. More specific to your post, humans have been altering food for many years. Take for example the orange which is a genetic mash up of a grapefruit and a lemon. While we might have a more sophisticated understanding at the genetic level of what we produce, humans have been meddling with food for a very long time now.

 

[Rogue]

Razor Sharp:
New tests are showing some pretty scary results in animals -organ failure, cancer, permanent intestinal damage, DNA mutation at the cell level and a host of problems scientists are just discovering:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_420365.html thats just one example.

Here is a response by DISCOVER magazine to the study and the Huffington Post article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/

It's also worth noting that the same scientists who say GMO crops are safe also claim the bovine antibiotics/hormones in milk are okay too. Yet we are already seeing girls as young as 4 years old around the world getting their periods from drinking this crap. That doesn't sound too safe or healthy to me.

Correlation is not causation.

Quicksilver:
Genetic Selection (using propagation stock from plants or animals with the desired genetic traits) is much different from Genetic Modification. Last time I checked, humans in 8,000 B.C. were not splicing insect genes with fish genes, or insect genes with corn genes.

Yes—"But the fact is that we've been changing the genetic makeup of our food for millennia, coaxing nature to do our bidding. Long before scientists understood what genes were and how they worked, early civilizations created wheat and corn. These crops, so very different from their wild ancestors, were mankind's first ventures in genetic modification. In time, plant breeders learned to stir up plant genes faster, using novel hybridization methods, chemicals and even radiation, to produce such marvels as white blackberries, Ice Cube lettuce, and Rio Red grapefruit." (Nina Fedoroff, PhD, Penn State University, member of the National Academy of Sciences)

Martina Newell-McGloughlin (director of the University of California's System-wide Biotechnology Research and Education Program; adjunct assistant professor, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis), points out that any asparagus you eat is made from anthers and are all supermales with chemically doubled chromosomes. Since 1957, any pasta (the starch) you eat has been mutagenized with the radioactive isotope cobalt-60. These are just two examples. 'Genetically modified foods' is a misnomer as conventional foods (which are unregulated and untested) are genetically modified beyond simple genetic selection and are ubiquitous. Splicing genes from one species to another is simply the latest novel technique in the history of genetic modification.

 

[Razor Sharp]

Well, they just passed it. http://current.com/news/92832200_de...s-us-senate-passes-s-510-food-safety-bill.htm I am disappointed and saddened, but not at all surprised.

@Rogue,

FWIW, that Discover article debunks nothing. It only attacks the credibility of the researchers and advices sobriety before jumping to conclusions - which I totally understand. I know you are big on dispelling myths with solid logic so let me ask you something directly:

Do you think it's normal or even ethical for a business which produces crops on a massive scale to make it illegal for scientists to publish the results of their safety tests of said produce? Does it make any scientific sense whatsoever to make it illegal to label cloned meat/milk as such? If this sh*t is so damn safe why not let people conduct independent safety tests or simply decide for themselves if they want to eat these foods? As such a vocal proponent of empirical study I am surprised that you would subscribe to such a myopically biased view.

Still keeping an open mind here, because I know that you know your sh*t. But the fact that you propose radiation and chemicals are acceptably safe measures for genetic modification makes it very difficult for me to take this particular argument of yours seriously.

I'm not trying to play the "I'm right" game here. Truth interests me far more than righteousness. On that note I will give you this much: did some digging and you are correct about the link between growth hormone and early puberty. So far no conclusive studies have been made. I'm glad you clarified that. It is actually CANCER which is being linked to BGH in preliminary studies: http://goo.gl/S29h7

Although there have been no long-term tests of the hormone's health effects on humans, some preliminary studies link BGH with increased risks of breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes and hypertension. BGH treated cows are more susceptible to "mad cow disease", udder infections and birthing deformed calves. Milk and other products from BGH treated cows may contain less protein and higher levels of saturated fat as well as pus, bacteria and antibiotics. Even though the FDA has acknowledged some of these dangers, they maintain approval of BGH's use in beef and dairy products and have refused to require labeling of products derived from use of BGH.

Some more interesting factoids:

* rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation.
* rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
* rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects.
* rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk.
* rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
* rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population.

This stuff is banned throughout all of europe for a reason!

Ya know Rogue, I am amused by this whole exchange because it illustrates the idea that anyone with access to google can back up any side of a debate. We can ping-pong like this for days, but the fact remains - Americans are being robbed of choices every day. In a country that prides itself on its democratic process, you'd think the people would at least get a say in what laws are passed - of course in order for them to do that they'd have to be informed of said laws to begin with.

Going back to what you said about newsworthiness:

This bill, as originally written, would have outlawed most nutritional supplements through harmonization with European laws. It also would have authorized ten-year prison sentences for farmers selling raw milk to their neighbors.

Thankfully common sense prevailed and those particular articles were removed, but it really hits home the malicious intent of this bill, and the lengths the media will go to report tons of fluff garbage before talking about something this serious or relevant to the daily lives of the american people.

Scientific postulations aside, the whole thing just f*cking stinks

 

[Kailex]

Yeah, it passed this morning.

That was the last big hurdle.
I'm sure it's a 99.9% certainty that it'll end up with Obama signing it.

But it does seem like there are exemptions for the small market farmers that make less than 500K a year... although this explicitly sets a glass ceiling.

Maybe I will see a Farmer's Market afterall.

 

[Rogue]

The DISCOVER magazine response to the study was not to 'debunk' the study but, as you point out, to draw the conclusions of the study were:

A) too inconclusive to justify alarmism; "[T]he scientists themselves give significant caveats that make such bold headlines a bit of a reach: 'Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity'—that is, the evidence isn’t rock solid, and not enough to warrant a bunch of alarmist headlines. The researchers argue that more research is necessary to settle the question either way: 'In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods'"; and to,
B) reserve prudent skepticism; funding issues are always one factor for evaluation, and the journal the research was published in a lower-tier journal. (A study published in the top-tier New England Journal of Medicine, for instance, is more newsworthy than a journal almost nobody has heard of, because science is a social process where scientists share data; the larger the journal, the larger the spread to prominent leading scientists, the higher the publication standards).

One point worth noting is that the researchers legally forced Monsanto to share the data ("to be fair, the team had to scratch and claw and sue to get their hands on"), so to some degree Monsanto's End User agreements are unenforceable.

If you have genuine interest in a reasoned discussion, I would like to ask you for 37 minutes of your time. I found an excellent presentation and discussion by graduate students of Harvard Medical School. The video is rather lengthy, the segment "Breeding and Genetic Engineering" explains how foods are genetically modified, but I want you to pay attention to "Ethical Issues and Concerns" and "Audience Question & Answer for Saskia de Vries," which are a combined 37 minutes.

One point is there is no consensus in the scientific community whether genetically modified foods are safe or dangerous, but there are greater concerns for our health in what we eat everyday than biotech food (like avoiding obesity). The only way to know if a specific food is safe is by thorough testing, but the only way to really know if a biotech food is dangerous is when adverse reactions are sudden and severe. If you listen to the NPR interview which I previously cited, if a biotech food were to cause an allergic reaction, which the Harvard presentation explains may happen with crossing genetics, then it's really hard to know because if you visited an allergist you would be simply told, "Well, you have a food allergy."

One point about food labeling is that foods are not labeled with potential health risks, like pesticides and fertilizers, so one could reasonably ask why should biotech foods be any different. The FDA does not consider biotech foods to be essentially different than conventional foods, and approximately 70-80% of food is genetically modified. In terms of safety, labeling is only required if a biotech food has different nutritional properties or contains an unexpected allergen. Since you have allergies, you might have grounds to focus on organic foods, but people who don't have food allergies might not need be concerned. Someone mentions in the Q&A session that there's probably no food on this planet which doesn't negatively affect someone.

The last question in the Q&A segment is: "The two major producers of genetically modified crops are Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto. They don't want to do the kind of testing that some of us would like. In doing your research, what arguments do they present for not wanting to do the research? If they truly believe that their products are safe and harmless, why are they resisting doing the testing?" Saskia de Vries speculates the answer may be that extensive testing is too expensive and too difficult to do on the necessary large scale and if they believe the foods are safe then (their reasoning is) the testing wouldn't have great enough benefit. A hot chick in the audience (hey, I have to give some incentive to watch the video) adds that Monsanto tries to protect its image on the global market as a reputable company. I agree their practice is questionable but it would be egregious to paint the whole topic with one or two brushes.

I could probably say more, but I need sleep.

 

[Razor Sharp]

I will definitely check that out when I have some spare time. Thanks again for debating these issues as a gentleman. It's a rare treat around these parts