New variant E. coli Outbreak

33

King Mob wrote: »

33, I've asked you two exceeding simple things.
Why are you responding with nonsense like this instead of answering them?

LY, you missed those letters mob after ex......, tomorrow night I hope to come back fighting, now I honestly cant be arsed, and maybe tomorrow I wont reply, but when I do I'll take it all in and express it accordingly.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

LY, you missed those letters mob after ex......, tomorrow night I hope to come back fighting, now I honestly cant be arsed, and maybe tomorrow I wont reply, but when I do I'll take it all in and express it accordingly.

So rather than actually address the questions I've asked you, you post more nonsense rambling and vague promises of continuing to ignore the questions.

You really should be asking yourself why you can't answer simple straightforward questions.
But then that could lead you into actually questioning your beliefs...

Talk E

Finally some sense from the Irish...

E coli panic putting organic food under the microscope

By Stephen King
Wednesday, June 08, 2011




BEFORE you fall for the scare about E coli in cucumbers and drive your local vegetable farmer out of business, just consider how insanely wrong the authorities were about so many other predicted apocalypses over the last decade.






A common feature of these panics has been that the overblown figures and doomsday scenarios never seem to materialise.

There were the inflated claims of the perils of an obesity epidemic which would soon surpass smoking as the greatest cause of premature loss of life. Tough measures were demanded and we saw campaigns to ban junk-food advertising, the routine weighing of school pupils and even the forcible removal of children from "overfeeding" parents, not to mention Jamie Oliver’s school dinners, served with generous helpings of hectoring and bourgeois moralising. The truth is that life expectancy continues to rise everywhere except Zimbabwe and North Korea. While extreme obesity is certainly a problem, a bit of puppy fat does no one any harm and the fat-but-fit have similar life expectancies to the thin-but-sedentary.

Remember SARS? The outbreak in East Asia in 2003 caused widespread global alarm even in countries that were not affected by the disease. Sales of face masks rocketed, even in Western countries which suffered no SARS-related deaths and only had a handful of confirmed cases of infection, all contracted in Asia.

Worse was the avian flu (H5N1) panic of 2005. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that the global death toll could be anywhere between 2 million and 7 million. The consequences were going to be worse than global warming, AIDS and terrorism all rolled into one.

Again, the reality was somewhat less dramatic. There were in fact fewer than 500 confirmed human cases of avian flu, half of which proved fatal. An appalling tragedy for those 200-odd people and their families, but a pandemic? Clearly not. The economic consequences for the poultry and tourism industries, however, were out of all proportion to the actual threat.

Swine flu came and went much the same way except this time Mexico became the centre of attention. Even though thousands of people die from flu-related syndromes around the world every year, an unhealthy amount of attention, resources, speculation and worrying is expended on any new exotic flu. Inflated figures emerge, pandemic threat alerts are raised, and countries suffer economic backlashes. The overreaction causes more harm than the disease itself.

In the case of swine flu in 2009, the head of the WHO declared: "All of humanity is under threat." As many as 50 million, even 100 million deaths were predicted. As it happens, around 10,000 people died around the world from swine flu. Yes, that’s pretty horrific until you remember it represents just a small proportion of those who die from "normal" flu, year in and year out.

Time and again, these threats are treated not as a medical issue to be dealt with through scientific solutions, but as an anxious disaster movie-like parable of the perils of modern life.

The difference this time, of course, is that it’s the "good guys" who are in the firing line. For years we have been told that processed food will cause us cancer, that factory farming will poison us, and that "chemicals" sprayed on crops will cause our children to have all sorts of abnormalities. Now, however, it’s an organic farm in northern Germany producing bean sprouts that’s under investigation — although tests so far have proved negative.

Already, despite there having been just 23 deaths — 22 in Germany and one Swede who had recently visited Germany — the whole world has gone into panic mode with sales of vegetables slumping as far away as Canada. The EU has done what it does best and called an emergency meeting to agree yet more subsidies for the poor afflicted farming community.

Shouldn’t Europe’s agriculture ministers instead have stood shoulder to shoulder and told people outside northern Germany to keep eating their greens? E coli sounds very scary but it’s just another form of food poisoning, something which, sadly, kills, hundreds, if not thousands of people every year.

What the agriculture ministers dare not do, of course, is suggest that consumers steer away from the organic vegetable counter and the farmers’ market for a week or two until the situation becomes clearer. The percentage of vegetables eaten which are produced organically might be tiny but the organic lobby has a powerful voice out of all proportion to its numbers. The underlying temper of our times is that anything processed or industrialised can be seen as adulterated and harmful, while anything that appears to be natural or close to nature can be regarded as pure and uncorrupted. The precise facts about residues, nutrition or environmental impact are rarely discussed. The good news is that ordinary folk contain an innate wisdom. They don’t need agriculture ministers in hock to various lobbies to tell them what to do. Organic food sales will drop for a few days, weeks or months as sure as eggs are eggs.

And a little caution about some of the fantastic claims made about the benefits of organic food might be no bad thing. The simplistic assertion that organic is always more nutritious than conventional food was always likely to be misleading.

FOOD is a natural product and the nutritional content of different foods varies for any number of reasons, including: freshness, the way the food is cooked, the soil conditions it is grown in, the amount of sunlight and water crops have received, and so on. The differences created by these things are likely to be greater than any differences brought about by using an organic or non-organic system of production. Frankly, some of the organic food industry’s main claims are simply smoke and mirrors.

For instance, the over-reaction to the dangers from manmade pesticides is in sharp contrast to the complete ignorance shown towards naturally-occurring poisons. Everyday foods are full of natural pesticides. That’s hardly a surprise, since we tend to choose as crops things that seem resistant to pests and disease. And given that some of the things that manmade pesticides are designed to eliminate — like poisonous fungal growths — are pretty dangerous, is spraying crops with them necessarily a bad thing? The organic movement has flourished because it is in tune with the zeitgeist, which favours the small and the local and hankers for alternatives to industrial-scale farming and what is seen as an over-cosy relationship between big producers and supermarkets.

We live in times where anything manmade is seen as tainted, dangerous for our health and the environment. Organic products have sold because of their "natural" glow. They suggest an awareness of the environment and personal health, a desire to live within the limits of nature.

We are told that we are powerless in the face of invisible forces over which we have little control. Worse still, any attempt to tame the natural world and to resolve informally any potential tensions in everyday, human interactions is seen as irresponsible. But if the E coli outbreak is proven to have originated from an organic farm, perhaps we can have a serious discussion about organic’s much-vaunted but scarcely proven advantages to human health.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/stephen-king/e-coli-panic-putting-organic-food-under-the-microscope-157088.html#ixzz1OfOmqw4W

ed2hands

The Daily Mail and science don't usually mix too well. This article is worth a quick scan though for comic value. Please read the comments at the end to see what some readers think of the issue. Here's three examples:

"More GM propoganda and spin in the risible 'science' pages of the DM. Even the ill-informed know there is a difference between genetically modified and selective breeding. Try as you might, you'll never rebrand GM as selective breeding and the agenda to spin everything in Monsanto's favour and normalise GM crops is transparent."

"This is an outrage. There is a huge difference between what we call genetically modified crops, and artificial selection. I think we can all assume that once humans began dabbling in agriculture, it was a no brainer for them to realize that it's best to use seed from the crops with the best traits. It's something a child using only half their intellect could figure out.

"Another corkingly stupid science story in the DM. Selective breeding isn't GM. Get a writer with some basic grasp of science if you want to report on it.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1394938/Cavemen-grew-GM-modified-rice-10-000-years-ago.html#ixzz1OfiaKIAH



Also for anyone still unsure whether pesticide use has actually INCREASED with GM, just google "GM increase pesticides"

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Well since the swine flu outbreak was originally meant to wipe out Mexicians, then when that didn't happen it was to be an excuse to enforce mandatory vaccinations which then also didn't happen, I suspect there'll be little to the usual scaremongering from the CTer crowd this time around either.

Swine flu was to ramp up the stock price of Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of Tamiflu and Relenza. I made a few quid on both but not nearly as much as Donald Rumsfeld (who used to sit on the board of Gilead which owns the Tamiflu patent).

I don't think that H1N1 is/was deliberately manufactured but I'm quite certain the threat was blown out of all proportion and once again I followed the money and made a bit myself.
Peace!

Now if only I had bought some shares in 3M when all those arseholes in America were taping fcuking binbags to their goddamn windows thinking it would save them from the imminent nerve gas attack!

King Mob

jackiebaron wrote: »

Swine flu was to ramp up the stock price of Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of Tamiflu and Relenza. I made a few quid on both but not nearly as much as Donald Rumsfeld (who used to sit on the board of Gilead which owns the Tamiflu patent).

I don't think that H1N1 is/was deliberately manufactured but I'm quite certain the threat was blown out of all proportion and once again I followed the money and made a bit myself.
Peace!

Now if only I had bought some shares in 3M when all those arseholes in America were taping fcuking binbags to their goddamn windows thinking it would save them from the imminent nerve gas attack!

And the swine flu was meant to wipe out all mexicans, then force us all to have mandatory vaccinations or be put in camps...

If you don't believe go back and read through the old thread and see all the stuff that was predicted at the start and you'll really see what blowing something out of proportion is.

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

Also for anyone still unsure whether pesticide use has actually INCREASED with GM, just google "GM increase pesticides"

But I've actually been able to post a scientific paper showing that it has decreased.
Where's the paper the author of the article you post was talking about?
Have you given up trying to find it?

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But I've actually been able to post a scientific paper showing that it has decreased.
Where's the paper the author of the article you post was talking about?
Have you given up trying to find it?

Sorry King Mob. I did spend time last evening when you asked then. The link to it appears to be still broken. Slow internet here doesn't help things, but if you google "Gm increases pesticides" you may have better luck. Could have sworn i heard it referenced on WHO among others. I know Friends of the Earth had another report, but i know you would pour scorn on such an organisations ability to be scientific or unbiased.:) (which i would thoroughly agree with you on:)) I do believe it to be the case though, but it's possible you're correct. I'm still fully against the whole shegang obviously regardless of this.

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

Sorry King Mob. I did spend time last evening when you asked then. The link to it appears to be still broken. Slow internet here doesn't help things, but if you google "Gm increases pesticides" you may have better luck. Could have sworn i heard it referenced on WHO among others. I know Friends of the Earth had another report, but i know you would pour scorn on such an organisations ability to be scientific or unbiased.:) (which i would thoroughly agree with you on:)) I do believe it to be the case though, but it's possible you're correct. I'm still fully against the whole shegang obviously regardless of this.

But again, I've actually posted a paper showing that GM crop reduce the use of pesticides.
Telling me to google it is not evidence and it doesn't support the claim of the article you posted.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you've not actually examined the article before you posted and have no idea if the paper referenced even exists, let alone says what the article says it does.

That coupled with the fact you've pretty much said you've closed your mind on the matter means you've no intention of engaging in a proper adult discussion.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But again, I've actually posted a paper showing that GM crop reduce the use of pesticides.
Telling me to google it is not evidence and it doesn't support the claim of the article you posted.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you've not actually examined the article before you posted and have no idea if the paper referenced even exists, let alone says what the article says it does.

That coupled with the fact you've pretty much said you've closed your mind on the matter means you've no intention of engaging in a proper adult discussion.

I haven't closed my mind IMO. I completely agree with the rest above though. I will take it that you are correct on it actually. I was quite sure based on articles about it; my bad.

ed2hands

King Mob am sincerely interested to know your main reasons why you take the view that it's a good thing for mankind. I certainly don't claim to know the science inside out, but it seems to be wrong on so many levels.

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

I haven't closed my mind IMO.

Well you'd have to explain how this:

I'm still fully against the whole shegang obviously regardless of this.

Or in other words "I will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented", can be taken as anything other than closed minded.

ed2hands wrote: »

King Mob am sincerely interested to know your main reasons why you take the view that it's a good thing for mankind. I certainly don't claim to know the science inside out, but it seems to be wrong on so many levels.

Well for many reasons:
Reduced pesticides, meaning less environmental impact where the crops are grown. It is important to note that I don't think more or less pesticides have any effect on the consumer. However pesticides do have effects on the environment where the crops are grown and on the workers in the field, so less need for them is better.

Increased yield. In most countries food is scarce and hard to grow. Crops that produce more food for less land and grow in harsher conditions would be massively beneficial.

Then outside of farming the medical benefits of genetic engineering certain animals and plants to test and produce new medicines and techniques are astronomical.

But there are some concerns outside the scaremongering nonsense spouted by some, such as some GM crops are sold sterile, meaning that the farmers must buy from the company each time they need to plant. But then again this also means the said crop cannot leak out of the farm and contaminate the surrounding environment.
It's a complex issue that cannot really fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive conspiracy out to get us all.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Well you'd have to explain how this:

Or in other words "I will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented", can be taken as anything other than closed minded.


Well for many reasons:
Reduced pesticides, meaning less environmental impact where the crops are grown. It is important to note that I don't think more or less pesticides have any effect on the consumer. However pesticides do have effects on the environment where the crops are grown and on the workers in the field, so less need for them is better.

Increased yield. In most countries food is scarce and hard to grow. Crops that produce more food for less land and grow in harsher conditions would be massively beneficial.

Then outside of farming the medical benefits of genetic engineering certain animals and plants to test and produce new medicines and techniques are astronomical.

But there are some concerns outside the scaremongering nonsense spouted by some, such as some GM crops are sold sterile, meaning that the farmers must buy from the company each time they need to plant. But then again this also means the said crop cannot leak out of the farm and contaminate the surrounding environment.
It's a complex issue that cannot really fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive conspiracy out to get us all.

When i said regardless of this i meant regardless of whether gm crops are currently using either more or less pesticides than before modern gm am still against it 100%. Hope thats clear. I haven't read your reasons yet. Will digest them and get back to you on it.

Talk E

I dont think it's human. I did a search for... through his post history and there not not a single one in 6,408 posts, nor is there a.. . It must be one of those computer generated persona's. It feels nothing, it cant smile or laugh, it has no emotion. Does anyone else think that's strange ? This deserves a thread of it's own :pac:

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

I dont think it's human. I did a search for... through his post history and there not not a single one in 6,408 posts, nor is there a.. . It must be one of those computer generated persona's. It feels nothing, it cant smile or laugh, it has no emotion. Does anyone else think that's strange ? This deserves a thread of it's own :pac:

Try searching for :pac: or :P

I use them rather than the others.

ed2hands

You use them perfectly Talk E haha. You crack me up. Others don't bother so each to his own i say. You have had some great comebacks Mob. Why not put a :cool: after it and bask in the glory of being completely and utterly correct on whatever. Just joking. You're a pleasure to read compared to some of the blogs i've read before on this and other things. Pompous arses that think they should be introduced with the blowing of long trumpets:pac:

Back to the op, off the bat King Mob, what do you think of Monsanto's "terminator" product?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Try searching for :pac: or :P

I use them rather than the others.

:pac: X 33 and :P X 74 out of 6,409 posts. How wrong was I :pac:

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

Back to the op, off the bat King Mob, what do you think of Monsanto's "terminator" product?

Well those were the crops I was referring to.

On one hand they are making the farmers dependant on them,
But on the other hand if they let the seeds reproduce people would be bitching about them letting their crops contaminate the environment.

digme

Toxin from GM crops found in human blood

Tags:

• SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE

Fresh doubts have arisen about the safety of genetically modified crops, with a new study reporting presence of Bt toxin, used widely in GM crops, in human blood for the first time.
Genetically modified crops include genes extracted from bacteria to make them resistant to pest attacks.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Well you'd have to explain how this:

Or in other words "I will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented", can be taken as anything other than closed minded.


Well for many reasons:
Reduced pesticides, meaning less environmental impact where the crops are grown. It is important to note that I don't think more or less pesticides have any effect on the consumer. However pesticides do have effects on the environment where the crops are grown and on the workers in the field, so less need for them is better.

Increased yield. In most countries food is scarce and hard to grow. Crops that produce more food for less land and grow in harsher conditions would be massively beneficial.

Then outside of farming the medical benefits of genetic engineering certain animals and plants to test and produce new medicines and techniques are astronomical.

But there are some concerns outside the scaremongering nonsense spouted by some, such as some GM crops are sold sterile, meaning that the farmers must buy from the company each time they need to plant. But then again this also means the said crop cannot leak out of the farm and contaminate the surrounding environment.
It's a complex issue that cannot really fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive conspiracy out to get us all.

They are very good reasons if they prove to be accurate in the medium to long term and they don't have unseen negative repurcusions in themselves to add to the many reported and factual repurcusions already known. I agree that it's definitely a very complex issue and it cannot fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive campaign to drum into the public that the benefits far outweigh the risks and that anyone that references these risks and repurcusions are childish and simplistic.

Torakx

People need money(so they all think.... and so they do).
Since there is more debt than money available, its obvious to compete, people need to jump to more and more extreme methods to sell their wares etc.
This one sounds even scarier than the H1N1's and so it should be following my previous logic lol
Nice thread thanks all for the comments.
This is my place for news updates

33

King Mob wrote: »

Well you'd have to explain how this:

Or in other words "I will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented", can be taken as anything other than closed minded.


Well for many reasons:
Reduced pesticides, meaning less environmental impact where the crops are grown. It is important to note that I don't think more or less pesticides have any effect on the consumer. However pesticides do have effects on the environment where the crops are grown and on the workers in the field, so less need for them is better.

Increased yield. In most countries food is scarce and hard to grow. Crops that produce more food for less land and grow in harsher conditions would be massively beneficial.

Then outside of farming the medical benefits of genetic engineering certain animals and plants to test and produce new medicines and techniques are astronomical.

But there are some concerns outside the scaremongering nonsense spouted by some, such as some GM crops are sold sterile, meaning that the farmers must buy from the company each time they need to plant. But then again this also means the said crop cannot leak out of the farm and contaminate the surrounding environment.
It's a complex issue that cannot really fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive conspiracy out to get us all.

Kingmob are you joking?, reduced pesticides?, where did you hear that?, the seed's are called terminator seed's and they produce pollen, the pollen is carried by wind, insects etc and when the pollen reaches an organic crop and pollinates it the resulting seed is also now a terminator seed, so they can and do damage nearby crops. And yes terminator seed's need to be bought, and if your organic farm is down wind from a monsanto field of the same crop, you will be the proud owner of monsanto patent seeds and they may sue you for it.

Roundup ready spray pesticides in large quantities and all that grows is monsanto, did you look at the whole "green revolution in India, the wonder of it's time that has destroyed the land, ohh and now there's no starvation in India and all the farmers who fell for the ploy are now multi millionaires.

NOT!

33

Their comparatively small region, Punjab, grows far more wheat and rice for India than any other region. But now these farmers are running out of groundwater.
They have to buy three times as much fertilizer as they did 30 years ago to grow the same amount of crops. They blitz their crops with pesticides, but insects have become so resistant that they still often destroy large portions of crops.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102893816

EDIT:
GM contamination of organic crop confirmed

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/gm-contamination-of-organic-crop-confirmed/story-e6frg19l-1225975970467

250,000 farmers have committed suicide and chemical-intensive methods have devastated the land Now India’s poorest women are growing a quiet revolution Seeds of hope

15 May 2011

BIG business agriculture promoted by Western corporations is to blame for up to a quarter of a million farmers committing suicide over the last 10 years, according to community leaders in India.

Poor farmers are forced to take out big loans to buy expensive pesticides and fertilisers, and to dig wells for the increasing amounts of water they need. But when their crops fail, or their wells dry up, they fall into debt – and many thousands kill themselves out of desperation.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/250-000-farmers-have-committed-suicide-and-chemical-intensive-methods-have-devastated-the-land-now-india-s-poorest-women-are-growing-a-quiet-revolution-seeds-of-hope-1.1101502?localLinksEnabled=false

33

Sorry Kingmob for being a little late, but better late than never, you say GM has been going on for millenia, well it hasn't, I'm a lazy bastard so will just copy and paste what has been said here in the past, firstly some myths and reality:

MYTH #1: Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.
REALITY: Genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered “fishberries” are already in the field. With genetic engineering, these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment1. Food and Drug Administration scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, and so are the risks2. Despite this warning, the FDA continues to assert that GE foods and crops are not different and don’t require special regulations.

MYTH #2: Genetic engineering can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.
REALITY: The reason for the 70 million acres of GE crops grown in this country today has nothing to do with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GE crops. Nearly all of the GE corn, soy, potatoes and cotton grown in the United States has been genetically altered so that it can withstand more pesticides or produce its own.

MYTH #3: GE crops eliminate pesticides and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.
REALITY: Farmers who grow GE crops actually use more herbicide, not less. For example, Monsanto created Roundup-Ready (RR) soy, corn and cotton specifically so that farmers would continue to buy Roundup, the company’s best-selling chemical weed killer, which is sold with RR seeds3. Instead of reducing pesticide use, one study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials suggested that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than non-GE farmers who use integrated weed-control methods. GE crops may be the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Many organic farmers rely on a natural bacterial spray to control certain crop pests. The advent of genetically engineered, insect-resistant crops is likely to lead to insects that are immune to this natural pesticide. When this biological pesticide is rendered ineffective, other farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals to deal with the “superbugs” created by GE crops. Meanwhile, organic farmers will be out of options.

MYTH #4: The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.
REALITY: Neither the FDA4, the Department of Agriculture (USDA)5, nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)6 has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops, nor has any mandatory regulation specific to GE food been established. Biotech companies are on the honor system. They have virtually no requirements to show that this new technology is safe. FDA scientists and doctors warned that GE foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease. The USDA has reviewed more than 5,000 applications for experimental GE crop field trials without denying a single one. USDA officials claimed they would conduct long-term studies of GE crops, but have no plans to require any pre-market or pre-release assessment. Studies conducted after our environment and food supply have been contaminated will be too late.

MYTH #5: There is no scientific evidence that GE foods harm people or the environment
REALITY: There is no long-term study showing that GE foods or crops are safe, yet the biotech industry and government have allowed our environment and our families to become guinea pigs in these experiments. Doctors around the world have warned that GE foods may cause unexpected health consequences that may take years to develop. Laboratory and field evidence shows that GE crops can harm beneficial insects, damage soils and transfer GE genes in the environment, thereby contaminating neighboring crops and potentially creating uncontrollable weeds.

MYTH #6: GE foods are necessary to feed the developing worlds growing population.
REALITY: In 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GE campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” The scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems7. Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies like Monsanto force growers to sign a ãtechnology use agreementä when growing their patented GE crops which stipulates, among other things, they the farmer can not save the seeds produced from their GE harvest. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition
http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/myths-realities-of-ge-crops/

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64774862&postcount=115

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Norman_Borlaug

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1710/64/

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/resources/documents/science/index.php

Terminator Seeds Threaten an End to Farming
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Tr..._Monsanto.html

The 12,000-year-old practice in which farm families save their best seed from one year's harvest for the next season's planting may be coming to an end by the year 2000. In March 1998, Delta ~ Pine Land Co. arid the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced they had received a US patent on a new genetic technology designed to prevent unauthorized seed-saving by farmers.

Ethical Investing

Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/mons...rminator.shtml

Unatural Selection Dangers of GMO foods.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64763081&postcount=109

GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php

This article outlines the many harmful effects of GM or genetically-modified foods (known also as genetically-engineered foods) and representng lab-created GMOs or genetically-modified organisms.
http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64754011&postcount=83

Henry Kissinger: In the now declassified 1974 document, National Security Memorandum 200, Kissinger outlines the plan to use food scarcity as a weapon in order to achieve population reduction in lesser-developed countries.
National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html


Global ObamaCare and World Population Control
According to Secretary Clinton, President Obama's Global Health Initiative will be "the centerpiece" of his foreign policy, and even though America is drowning in debt and the U.S. economy is floundering, he has committed $63 billion to his global ObamaCare initiative.
The Gates connection to the GHI is so extensive that it is probably not an exaggeration to say the Obama Global Health Initiative represents the successful transfer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's global health policies into official U.S. policy, with the costs also being transferred to the U.S. taxpayers
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....lation-control


Population Control Advocate Wanted To Sterilize Food, Water
A 1972 article about “The Population Bomb” biologist Paul Ehrlich reveals a nascent environmental movement grappling with mass sterilization, climate fears, “international policy planning” and redistribution of wealth. The article reveals dramatic parallels to today's modern environmental movement.
http://climatedepot.com/a/5446/1972-...d-water-supply


Sorry mob for the copy and paste's, links etc, but there was no way I was spending an hour writing things that have been said before, just for you to dissmiss it, this way I won't get as aggitated when you do.

Hope you understand!

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Sorry Kingmob for being a little late, but better late than never, you say GM has been going on for millenia, well it hasn't, I'm a lazy bastard so will just copy and paste what has been said here in the past, firstly some myths and reality:


Sorry mob for the copy and paste's, links etc, but there was no way I was spending an hour writing things that have been said before, just for you to dissmiss it, this way I won't get as aggitated when you do.

Hope you understand![/LEFT]

Your right, not arsed to read what you've not been arsed to write.
But good to know you've no issue spewing out biased propaganda wholesale.

33

King Mob wrote: »

Your right, not arsed to read what you've not been arsed to write.
But good to know you've no issue spewing out biased propaganda wholesale.

I must be psychic or just going by experience!, do you care to tackle anything in the post where I did actually write it ALL myself, no copy and pastes, or links, just my words typed with my fingers?

BY Me a few posts back, that you ignored:
Kingmob are you joking?, reduced pesticides?, where did you hear that?, the seed's are called terminator seed's and they produce pollen, the pollen is carried by wind, insects etc and when the pollen reaches an organic crop and pollinates it the resulting seed is also now a terminator seed, so they can and do damage nearby crops. And yes terminator seed's need to be bought, and if your organic farm is down wind from a monsanto field of the same crop, you will be the proud owner of monsanto patent seeds and they may sue you for it.

Roundup ready spray pesticides in large quantities and all that grows is monsanto, did you look at the whole "green revolution in India, the wonder of it's time that has destroyed the land, ohh and now there's no starvation in India and all the farmers who fell for the ploy are now multi millionaires.

NOT!

Which was in response to this:

Originally Posted by King Mob
Well you'd have to explain how this:

Or in other words "I will not change my mind regardless of the evidence presented", can be taken as anything other than closed minded.

Kingmob said:
Well for many reasons:
Reduced pesticides, meaning less environmental impact where the crops are grown. It is important to note that I don't think more or less pesticides have any effect on the consumer. However pesticides do have effects on the environment where the crops are grown and on the workers in the field, so less need for them is better.

Increased yield. In most countries food is scarce and hard to grow. Crops that produce more food for less land and grow in harsher conditions would be massively beneficial.
PLEASE READ ABOUT THE GREEN REVOLUTION IN INDIA MOB, I linked it in the ignored post.

Then outside of farming the medical benefits of genetic engineering certain animals and plants to test and produce new medicines and techniques are astronomical.

But there are some concerns outside the scaremongering nonsense spouted by some, such as some GM crops are sold sterile, meaning that the farmers must buy from the company each time they need to plant. But then again this also means the said crop cannot leak out of the farm and contaminate the surrounding environment.
Again mob you don't understand pollination and that terminator seeds do produce pollen, that contaminates organic, which in turn makes the once organic natural crop become "TERMINATOR", again outlined in the ignored post!

It's a complex issue that cannot really fit into the childish simplistic rule of the massive conspiracy out to get us all

Yes and it seems too complex for you to grasp, please educate yourself, it's not mine or anybody else's responsibility.

ed2hands

(Sorry, not related to OP rather the gm food bit.)

Don't want to resurrect this just yet but this interesting article from Huff Post relating to Report on Birth Defects in tests and EU shenanigans came out last week. Some good comments at end. Haven't read the thing and don't want to stand over it by any stretch (apparently the dosage levels given in the tests were v high but the it also states Monsanto haven't tested it properly at lower levels).

Just find it strange (then again i don't actually) it wasn't picked up yet by other news even if it's dosages were scoffed at?? :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html

Report itself here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

Old vid relating to media cover-up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw&feature=share



http://ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/the-real-scoop/the-real-scoop.html#Responses_to_FTY_Critics_PartII