35 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

Quote

It's illegal for farmers to hoard heirloom seeds ,aka NON GMO seeds

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.

Quote

the gmo crops and response to monsantos round up pesticide,is what's killing our bees,and monsanto covered it up

I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

Edited by AsteroidX, 03 February 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Simbi Laveau]

AsteroidX, on 03 February 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.




I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

I just heard about a ton of privately owned honey bee hives dying . What part of the country are you in ?
If you haven't had a problem ,I wouldn't worry unless you hear about bees dying in your area.

[Simbi Laveau]

AsteroidX, on 03 February 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Im in a conversation on another board about heirloom seeds and GMO contamination.




I have a honeybee nest on my property should I be worried ? Should I be taking any precautions to protect it ? So far I just leave it natural but am thinking of getting into a whitebox for my gardening and portability.

.
http://news.sciencem...nts-to-res.html

And maybe get a bee keeping donkey

http://urbanfarmandbeehives.com/

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 03 February 2013 - 04:29 PM.

[AsteroidX]

I live in Oregon almost offgrid. But I think I have one of the few honeybee nest itleast withing a few acres. So its important to me. In the past Ive been more worried about Africanized bees making there way up here but now it looks like there may be a new threat.

Looks like Ill have to get them a whitebox and put them behind my fence where nothing but GMO free heirloom seeds are grown.

Dont tell the govmnt please cause theyll come tear it all down for being to far off the grid and self sustaining.

[jugoso]

bmk1245, on 03 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Fear mongering continues...

I´m not exactly how the OP is fear mongering.  The genetically modified salmon are inconsequential to the whole process involved in their approval. As technology has allowed us to play God, there are many questions and concerns about long term consequences of the new products that will ever-increasingly become available.. Having the company that wants to market the product responsible for the testing seems ridiculous. And the fact that the FDA will accept these results speaks volumes to how well they are doing their job. creating new categories that allow for less testing and scaled-back environmental impact studies are}ts negligent and the blueprint for possible irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

[AsteroidX]

I see the makings of a future avatar in the Beekeeping Donkey. Thanks for the share Simbi

[bmk1245]

Simbi Laveau, on 03 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Former anti gmo = paid off to say the opposite.
[...]

Heh, one that have the courage acknowledge hes been ignorant, now becomes "paid off". Typical argument from lala lander.

Simbi Laveau, on 03 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

[....]
Bill gates = anti Christ

Sure feed billions crap,because bill gates wants billions to die so his children can live in the world of his creations.
Lol
[...]

I see things quite opposite: you are the one who wants billions to die with your quite often proposition Don't go to see [...] (insert the word, you know which).

Simbi Laveau, on 03 February 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

[....]
http://nutritionnews...iews.com/?p=314

http://www.organicco...media052102.cfm

http://myhealingkitc...t-organic-food/

http://www.bibliotec...cro-gates11.htm

Hot air, fear mongering, nothing more.
Here is Monsanto's (and not only) response.

[bmk1245]

jugoso, on 04 February 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I´m not exactly how the OP is fear mongering.  The genetically modified salmon are inconsequential to the whole process involved in their approval. As technology has allowed us to play God, there are many questions and concerns about long term consequences of the new products that will ever-increasingly become available.. Having the company that wants to market the product responsible for the testing seems ridiculous. And the fact that the FDA will accept these results speaks volumes to how well they are doing their job. creating new categories that allow for less testing and scaled-back environmental impact studies are}ts negligent and the blueprint for possible irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

But we "played God" long before GM in the lab. How many, for example, wheat (heck rye, apples, potatoes, tomatoes, etc, etc) breeds (non-GM) you know and have on the table that comes from the nature solely, i.e. were developed without human interference?

Now, lets look at GM salmon. It grows faster (it will arrive on your table much sooner) hence will accumulate less mercury (not that its very big problem, as was pointed out earlier by other UMer). How about that?

[AsteroidX]

Will it be labeled ? Will there be an alternative that does not include go catch it myself ?

Lack of research does not equal an exceptional product. Only hazardous tendencies to experiment with biology.

Farmers have for centuries grown stronger and more resilient crops through selecting good seeds from last years crop. Even cross pollinating certain crops to hybrids. The difference is this is done naturally without need for a laboratory of secrets and a trail of victims.

Even a childs toy is labeled as a hazard if it could be swallowed by an infant based on a young childs tendency to grab and put things in there mouth they are not suppose too. But not genetically modified food.. That has to be exempt because they have no idea whats going to happen to Humans that consume too much of it. What greater test population then the hungry/starving of the world. What better test subject then MY child. My child is not at an age where he can understand this type of gross negligence to humanity.

Why would a rationale person defend this practice before it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested as safe. Then to push it off on unaware people without even a label *cough* could be misunderstood by some.

[bmk1245]

AsteroidX, on 04 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Will it be labeled ? Will there be an alternative that does not include go catch it myself ?
[...]

I'm not against labeling, but if some "evil" GM don't want to do it, manufacturers of non-GM can put labels "Non-GM" on their products.

AsteroidX, on 04 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

[...]
Lack of research does not equal an exceptional product. Only hazardous tendencies to experiment with biology.

Farmers have for centuries grown stronger and more resilient crops through selecting good seeds from last years crop. Even cross pollinating certain crops to hybrids. The difference is this is done naturally without need for a laboratory of secrets and a trail of victims.

[...]

If its natural, then it can't be poisonous? Recently Australian developed new salt-tolerant wheat. Is it good for your health and will you ask for the health risk assessment? I guess not for the latter.  Now, if it would have been done in "the lab" is it bad, or good if FDA (and other agencies) would approve it after reviewing researches? Do you ask for risk assessments for apple cultivars, which are scab and canker resistant? How do know those "chemicals" that fight apple diseases, will not fight your healthy cells?

Let me use blunt and faulty logic again: throughout 20th century cancer rates increased, as well increased number of cultivars. See correlation? (Who cares about causation...)

AsteroidX, on 04 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

[...]What greater test population then the hungry/starving of the world. What better test subject then MY child. My child is not at an age where he can understand this type of gross negligence to humanity.

Why would a rationale person defend this practice before it has been thoroughly and rigorously tested as safe. Then to push it off on unaware people without even a label *cough* could be misunderstood by some.

Emotions aside: people who work in those companies do have children, relatives; people in FDA have children and relatives, etc, etc. Ah, of course, they are so evil that would sacrifice their kids for money.

[jugoso]

bmk1245, on 04 February 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

But we "played God" long before GM in the lab. How many, for example, wheat (heck rye, apples, potatoes, tomatoes, etc, etc) breeds (non-GM) you know and have on the table that comes from the nature solely, i.e. were developed without human interference?

I´m not referring to selective breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulaton and insertion. It´s pretty difficult to selectively breed eel genes into salmon. And there are still issues with genetically modified plants and vegetables that are of serious concern to farmers who don´t want to use them. Their crops are becoming contaminated by the GM strains and are causing them to lose their organic certification. In addition Monsanto is trying to sue them for using their seed without paying for it. Contamination of crops seems inevitable taking away choice and forever altering the ecosystem

Quote

The GM industry used to claim that GM contamination of non-GM crops could not occur. After it became clear that this was false, it shifted the argument to lobbying for “co-existence” of GM, non-GM, and organic crops. The industry now argues that farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish and says that no serious problems are caused for non-GM and organic farmers.
But experience has shown that the arrival of GM crops in a country removes choice. “Coexistence” rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops, resulting in lost markets. Contamination occurs through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. Farmers are gradually forced to grow GM crops or have their non-GM crops contaminated.
Scientific studies confirm that GM contamination is unavoidable once GM crops are grown in a region.

http://earthopensour...d-organic-crops

bmk1245, on 04 February 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Now, lets look at GM salmon. It grows faster (it will arrive on your table much sooner) hence will accumulate less mercury (not that its very big problem, as was pointed out earlier by other UMer). How about that?

The salmon growing faster-less mercury contamination argument doesn´t wash for me,

Has it been proven that t this new “food-drug” poses no risk to wild salmon? What will happen in the longrun if cross-contamination occurs as it has with GM plants?

[bmk1245]

jugoso, on 05 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

I´m not referring to selective breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulaton and insertion. It´s pretty difficult to selectively breed eel genes into salmon. [...]

So? How many genetic material those two fishes share already?

jugoso, on 05 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

[...] And there are still issues with genetically modified plants and vegetables that are of serious concern to farmers who don´t want to use them. Their crops are becoming contaminated by the GM strains and are causing them to lose their organic certification. In addition Monsanto is trying to sue them for using their seed without paying for it. Contamination of crops seems inevitable taking away choice and forever altering the ecosystem
[...]

And you are 100% sure those farmers just don't trying to cash in by suing company for damages? BTW, instead of "being forced to buy GM seeds", they can buy non-GM seeds. Simple.

jugoso, on 05 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

[...]The salmon growing faster-less mercury contamination argument doesn´t wash for me,
[...]

Ok, no problem There are other things: people with less income would afford eat salmon more often and get more omega-3 fatty acids, and thus decrease rates of hearts diseases. Is it bad? Not to mention it will "relieve stress" on natural salmon population which is shrinking nowadays.

jugoso, on 05 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

[...]
Has it been proven that t this new “food-drug” poses no risk to wild salmon? What will happen in the longrun if cross-contamination occurs as it has with GM plants?

This particular salmon will be raised in contained inland systems. What if such system will give a breach? Well, many things can happen. Train carrying chemicals can devastate half of the city, for example. Or huge asteroid can devastate whole country, etc etc.

You can look at all this GM vs non-GM from the different angle: lets say I bought new breed of non-GM crops resistive to some diseases. Farmer in the neighborhood uses different breed that is less resistive to those diseases. After the years of cross pollination I end up with hybrid, which might be even far more susceptible to those diseases. What then?

BTW, how many original corn breed(s) brought to territories of todays USA survived (until GM times)? And how many plant species were displaced, became endangered (or even extinct) after, for example, potatoes where brought to Europe?

[DKO]

I'm just waiting until I can order a BBQ four-wing four-leg chicken.

[jugoso]

bmk1245, on 06 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

So? How many genetic material those two fishes share already?

I have no idea. However, whatever genetic material they share would be a result of nature rather than laboratory manipulation

bmk1245, on 06 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

And you are 100% sure those farmers just don't trying to cash in by suing company for damages? BTW, instead of "being forced to buy GM seeds", they can buy non-GM seeds. Simple.

I don´t think this is the case. What is happening is the farmers want to grow non GM crops and are finding that their crops are contaminated by the GM strains. They not only lose their organic certification but are vulnerable to lawsuits by the “owners” of said strain.

Quote

With the help of a nonprofit called the Public Patent Foundation, organic and other farmers who do not wish to plant GMOs filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, the world's largest seed company and the holder of numerous GMO seed patents. The company is notorious for suing those farmers when their non-GMO crops become contaminated by GMOs growing in nearby fields. And the organic and non-GMO farmers hoped the suit would protect them from any litigation in the event that their crops become contaminated against their knowledge via drifting pollen or cross-pollination from bees. The lawsuit represented over 300,000 farmers, most of whom were represented by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association.

Monsanto owns the patent on these strains and can sue farmers whose feilds contain them even if it is due to cross-pollination.
There is absolutely no way to control this as was claimed when they were introduced

Quote

“The cultivation of genetically modified maize [in Spain] has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible."Conclusion of research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: "An impossible coexistence: transgenic and organic agriculture", Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 30 June 2008

bmk1245, on 06 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Ok, no problem There are other things: people with less income would afford eat salmon more often and get more omega-3 fatty acids, and thus decrease rates of hearts diseases. Is it bad? Not to mention it will "relieve stress" on natural salmon population which is shrinking nowadays.

Farmed salmon whether genetically altered or not have a lot more contaminants than wild salmon.

Quote

A study published this week in a leading scientific journal found significantly higher levels of cancer-causing and other health-related contaminants in farm raised salmon than in their wild counterparts. The study, published in Science and by far the largest and most comprehensive done to date, concluded that concentrations of several cancer-causing substances in particular are high enough to suggest that consumers should consider severely restricting their consumption of farmed salmon
The researchers found significantly higher concentrations ofcontaminants in farmed salmon versus wild. In particular, four substances that have been well studied for their ability to cause cancer — PCBs, dioxins, dieldrin, and toxaphene — were consistently and significantly more concentrated in farmed salmon as a group.

bmk1245, on 06 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

This particular salmon will be raised in contained inland systems. What if such system will give a breach? Well, many things can happen. Train carrying chemicals can devastate half of the city, for example. Or huge asteroid can devastate whole country, etc etc.

Again, as previously mentioned, this is not about the salmon but rather the process of approval for this new food-drug. First off, the company that is selling it has been left in charge of determining it´s health risks. BAD IDEA. Secondly, rather than a full envioronmental assessment they have opted for one that is much less extensive. BAD IDEA
Once the floodgates are opened there will be many new products which pose different types of risks:

Quote

AquaBounty itself is looking at GM trout, according to its prospectus, and has conducted trials on catfish. Up to six other species of fish – including tilapia and cod – are viewed by biotech companies as ripe for genetic modification, according to experts.

bmk1245, on 06 February 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

You can look at all this GM vs non-GM from the different angle: lets say I bought new breed of non-GM crops resistive to some diseases. Farmer in the neighborhood uses different breed that is less resistive to those diseases. After the years of cross pollination I end up with hybrid, which might be even far more susceptible to those diseases. What then?

I don´t know what would happen but I know what wouldn´t happen. They wouldn´t be at risk of being sued by a huge multinational corporation with bottomless pockets.

Again, I don´t know exactly what the long-term impacts are but feel that the blueprint for the appbvalprocess is lacking.

Are you really comfortable with it?

[jugoso]

Congress Unites Against FDA Approval of GE Salmon

At least 30 House members and 14 senators have written the Obama administration either expressing serious concerns about the manner in which the FDA conducted its review of Aquabounty’s GE salmon, or calling for the outright prohibition of its approval for human consumption.