|
Post by prunella on Mar 6, 2015 8:52:53 GMT -5
C'mon, what's in the news?
|
|
|
Post by claude on Mar 6, 2015 9:28:39 GMT -5
Dr Schift (?) from MIT has been stating for years that the active ingredient in roundup has found a way into human DNA via the intestinal track. It was previously thought that glyphosate would not pass from plant to human because no human cell function would transport it. She questions the acceptable level amounts since the toxicity is multiplied when the entire formula is tested...not just the active ingredient. I watched a documentary, Bought yesturday. I'll try to post a link where you can view for free today. Www.boughtmovie.com
|
|
|
Post by oliverman on Mar 6, 2015 10:31:25 GMT -5
Well, how about golden rice? tinyurl.com/bdxhrdmCan we in the organic community embrace the good of scientific research while still shunning the bad?
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Mar 6, 2015 15:25:01 GMT -5
The GMO labelling has begun to ignite many more people now than it has even a year ago. And we always knew that science would eventually show it affecting the human DNA. It was a matter of time. And even Obama has agreed to get GMO labeling done. Step by step progress is being made. It is about time.
|
|
|
Post by gakaren on Mar 6, 2015 21:29:12 GMT -5
Well, how about golden rice? tinyurl.com/bdxhrdmCan we in the organic community embrace the good of scientific research while still shunning the bad? But only one crop??? Where other GMO/GEO'd crops are NOT living up to their claims as far as yields and amounts of chemicals that have to be applied? Is it worth it in the long run? And what about long term studies? Do they know yet what the long term results from eating golden rice can be for the body? And I'm not talking about the chemical companies 3 month studies either. And has it been tested by independent means or only by chemical company sponsor/paid studies?
|
|
|
Post by oliverman on Mar 6, 2015 23:42:53 GMT -5
I knew I was going to cause a ruckus with that one. Here is why I feel like this is a major issue that those of us in the organic community need to address. This is a development that has undergone significant animal testing and directly addresses an issue that is KILLING 2 million people annually. Yet we oppose it because it MIGHT have a negative long term effect that has not yet been discovered. Is it the ideal solution, probably not, but this is a positive step that we can take now. It would be wonderful if everyone could have access to a varied and balanced diet, but that is still far from reality in much of the world. Here is a link to what the Gates Foundation has to say about golden rice. tinyurl.com/ox4bexyAnother thing that puzzles me is how inducing random mutations in plants by exposing them to radiation or harsh chemicals, then selecting the desirable mutations is acceptable, but intentional gene splicing is never ok. Even if the gene splicing involves something that could have naturally occurred, but eliminates all of the other genetic shift that occurs when crossing two distinct parent plants. Excuse me if I appear like I am one of the "enemies," I just try to be the best steward of what I have control over. Sometimes I seriously question my support of the strict rules of organic farming, because organic farming systems as they are today (mine included) till too much. Fortunately I farm ground that is not highly susceptible to erosion. Some of the organic crop farms I see allow their soils to be degraded by erosion due to the terrain, and I honestly believe that substituting some herbicides for tillage is better for the land in those circumstances. Ideally, we would find a way to farm organically without tillage, but we are not there yet. Progress is being made in developing better methods to do so, but we can't afford to wash away the soil that we have while we wait.
|
|
|
Post by davidjp on Mar 11, 2015 13:25:27 GMT -5
Excuse me if I appear like I am one of the "enemies," I just try to be the best steward of what I have control over. Sometimes I seriously question my support of the strict rules of organic farming, because organic farming systems as they are today (mine included) till too much. Fortunately I farm ground that is not highly susceptible to erosion. Some of the organic crop farms I see allow their soils to be degraded by erosion due to the terrain, and I honestly believe that substituting some herbicides for tillage is better for the land in those circumstances. Ideally, we would find a way to farm organically without tillage, but we are not there yet. Progress is being made in developing better methods to do so, but we can't afford to wash away the soil that we have while we wait. I would pretty much agree with this. I always wonder why if the seed is I'm sure more expensive and you're locked in to use of a particular chemical (glyphosphate) then why has it been so successful. Isn't there something like 90% for GMO for soybean and corn farmed now. So there must be some significant upside to farmers for its use. I suspect ease of use and less tillage and reduced erosion may be one of them but I don't have the experience or knowledge to really comment on that. I still believe in labelling as consumers should be able to make a choice but I doubt theres much risk involved, after all pretty much all the US population has been exposed for quite a while. Also seems like a natural experiment in that european populations haven't had much exposure as yet. Pretty much all we use is genetically modified by ordinary plant breeding over generations to come up with the crops we use now, I know its different and not lab based but in the end its still genetic modification. I also look forward to other technologes coming forward for drought resistnace or other crop disease resistances and lessening the use of chemicals, although where the business plan will coem into that I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by davidjp on Mar 13, 2015 11:04:25 GMT -5
|
|