Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GMO Food is a Scam. These people grow 1,000,000 pounds of food on 3 Acres!

page: 4
90
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Who signes your paycheck? Dow? Monsanto? You are shilling for someone.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by serial
Only a conspiracy theorist of the utmost paranoia would believe that GMO crops are anything but the natural progression of humans applying technology to better people's lives.


That is radically ignorant. Please do more research into the manipulations taking place rather than harboring so much hope without reason. GMOs cannot be treated as bettering peoples' lives when it is not provably the case. Not only does genetically modifying food cause financial slavery, it also causes many variables to be introduced which need to be accounted for before issuing a judgment as to whether something is good. That will require much more testing and time. So until you take that time and do that testing, your words are impotent.


Originally posted by serial
Sorry, but the fact is, at least here in the US, we die of cholesterol. We love beef, burgers, and hot dogs, and we die because they taste so good we make them a majority of our diet. The average lifespan here would probably jump up 10 years if we all gave up the beef and ate nothing but GMO crops, but we wont, because as I said, salad is for bunnies.

This is also ignorant. The issue with cholesterol is not simply one of over consumption of meat, but it is one of consumption of unhealthy meat in anything more than trivial amounts, poor quality cholesterol intake, a lack of healthy cholesterol intake and/or poor nutrition apart from meat and grains (meaning foods high in vitamins, minerals and other plant-based compounds; Nuts, Fruit, Veggies, Seeds).


---
The simple answer is to increase the amount of farmers that there are. Nothing can replace tending to things carefully. Any deferred labor or costs simply compound while still requiring later collection/redemption. Or we can call going backwards while facing forward (and sort of climbing a ladder) progress and stick our collective head in the ground.
edit on 11/20/2010 by Dasher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You admit that the effects are unknown, but continue to defend your point as though GMOs are safe. The current testing is crap, and we both acknowledge that. It should cause both sides to do more research and allow more time for things to unfold. At least a generation or two should pass before hesitantly continuing the expansion of GMO use and experiments so that we can be assured of it's healthfulness. Instead, you use the fact that the testing is poor to justify GMOs as good? That isn't just a stretch, it is logically impossible to conclude. I respect the way you have been communicating in this thread, but what you are communicating is obviously inconsistent, unfounded, and distracting from the truth of GMOs being a big unknown at this time. Please continue communicating as decently as you have been, but increase your consistency, justification, and reasoning.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
If it wasn't for genetically manipulating vegetables we wouldn't be enjoying the tomato as we do today. A staple in our consumption, and also one of the top ten most nutritious vegetables we eat and or use.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Im really interested in applying these sort of things to help poor people in Latinamerica.
I wonder if i should create a thread. See, we are about to win the elections for governor and I wonder if we could simply eliminate starvation with this system, I know we could.. but what about the economy? I mean free food = nobody is gonna buy any food anymore... would love to put lots of this greenhouses all over the country but would be nice if you experienced guys told me about how not to affect the economy :p

we also have an excelent weather all year long

I may create a thread later..
s+f
edit on 20-11-2010 by aNdReSk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by GlennCanady
 



It also proves mine. The effects of this stuff on humans and other animals is simply not known. Mice and smaller animals eat far more food pound-per-pound than humans do. This means a nominal diet will result in considerably higher chemical concentrations in mice than in humans. As I have also mentioned - a number of our body's functions are far superior to those of many other animals, including the metabolizing of toxins.

I can feed you ten chocolate bars a day and you will not die from caffeine overdose or hypoglycemia. Your dog, cat, mouse, etc will (even after adjusting dosage to weight). This is a considerable factor in all of these tests. For whatever strange reason - our bodies seem incredibly resilient to toxins that most other animals find simply intolerable.

SO you are happy to introduce plant species which may not be harmfull to man and only harmful to those animals which nature relies on to keep a healthy ecology?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I understand that this technology has helped many people eat the food they need but at what cost? Putting genes of animals into food? DNA is the fundemental building block of all life. Isn't it wrong to mess around with the very force that created us? Especially when we dont know everything about it. We thought that anti-biotics and pesticides would help us and while they have, we are now aiding in the evolution of super viruses and pests that are immune to our attempts at killing them. Im just saying that when we dont understand the outcome of something, we should'nt attempt use and abuse it. Humans should not be screwing around with such a powerful force of nature. We may be screwing the very thing that makes us.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
OH, let people have their GMO if they want it. I hope they label the food GMO OR NO GMO , tho. Let some peoples be lab rats and watch and see what happens. If people start dying, then pull the product. I still think the CEO and PRESIDENT of the company should eat their own food for life, reguardless of the symptoms, so that they can have to opportunity to be effected like the people they feed the stuff to in the first place. YOU like it, don't you america.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
It seems like GMO food is soft-kill.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


by the fact that you said most of your diet is corn syrup, I know no member of ATS should be listening to you. Are you kidding us? you want to talk about health practices with a diet like that? Awful. You clearly do not care for your body at all



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 



The eastern philosophy is more complete than that! No tilling, start from that concept. The plants are mulched by straw throughout the growing season, and simply cut after the season, if annuals, to compost on the spot. The nutrients naturally get re-absorbed back into the soil through rainfall and gravity.


The problem is that many of the micro-organisms in the soil require the elements within the atmosphere (oxygen and nitrogen, primarily). Responsible tilling is done for three main reasons - to loosen the soil and keep it from compacting, to circulate nutrients and promote deeper root systems, and to aerate the soil for micro-organisms that live there.

The reason you plow so that the roots are exposed in the winter is to kill any nematodes and other nasty little bugs that like to hang out in old root systems between cycles.


Keeping in mind one additional and vital point : Every stage you add to process is one more expenditure of time and possible resources. This could apply to say, adding glacial dust to the plants to keep pests away as an alternative to pesticides. No good : this is an extra step which requires aquiring the dust, spreading the dust, and washing off the dust afterwards.


I've got a book full of "non-synthetic" means of repelling and destroying pests. Again - any wise gardener will tell you to use the least amount of force necessary to deal with a threat. In some cases - that will be chemical pesticides.


Plant onions, leeks, and a variety of other plants typically considered weeds strategically throughout the crop. This naturally repels the insects, and is proven very effective. These also become additional crops for your harvest.


This is a no-brainer for someone working with small gardens (an acre or less). Doesn't work as well with large-scale industrial crops.


Those sub-earth micro-organisms, worms, beetles, and other lifeforms are your tillers and your oxen replacement.


No, they aren't. While many are beneficial - they are no substitute for responsible tilling practices.


Planting perennial berry bushes, fruit trees (varied depending on climate), walnut trees, and other harvestables in otherwise non-agricultural lands would lead to these being as common as, say, Queen Annes lace or dandelions. What that means is that no one has to go hungry, or rely on fiat currency to enjoy anti-oxidizing, nutritious organic produce, ever again.


No, sorry - most soils are insufficient for providing much in the line of fruit-bearing plants. Certainly not in the amounts necessary to even partially sustain human civilization.

If you want a government-funded "let's make food" ideology - then you'll have to look to local/regional farms. The whole principle of cultivation is that paying close attention and caring for a smaller number of plants will provide superior sustenance as compared to "throw it to the wind."

reply to post by ..5..
 



Who signes your paycheck? Dow? Monsanto? You are shilling for someone.


I disagree with you, therefor I must be a shill.

If you must know, I have two pay-checks. One is 'signed' by the U.S. Navy Reserve (RESPAY). The other is signed by Pam McGrath - owner of a local restaurant here in town.


reply to post by Dasher
 



You admit that the effects are unknown, but continue to defend your point as though GMOs are safe. The current testing is crap, and we both acknowledge that. It should cause both sides to do more research and allow more time for things to unfold.


My line of reasoning is hardly inconsistent. Food testing is pretty much an invalid concept to begin with. Human biochemistry is very diversified and individual, and will only continue to become more diversified as time goes on. The rate at which new biological traits are emerging in the population vastly exceeds the rate at which they are detected - or would be practical to detect with today's technology and concepts of privacy.

Even taking a rather basic beverage; tea, for example, contains hundreds of different chemicals that differ on such whimsical concepts as the length of time the leaves are exposed to hot water, how hot the water is, and the altitude at which the tea is brewed (dictates boiling temperature). Further - drinking tea with lemon increases the absorption of some chemicals, while drinking it with milk nullifies a number of the chemicals thought to be good. The fluoride in tea is cited as beneficial for dental health but blamed on the increased number of bone fractures amongst study groups drinking higher quantities of tea.

Testing of specific drugs and chemicals is troublesome enough. Testing food and expecting any kind of conclusive or useful results is almost impossible. While I am not against testing food - pretty much every "analysis on the health effects of [insert food]" study is horribly premature.


Instead, you use the fact that the testing is poor to justify GMOs as good? That isn't just a stretch, it is logically impossible to conclude.


As it is logically impossible to conclude it is bad.

You don't have to eat it.

This is all reminiscent of the whole asbestos outrage. In twenty more years, we'll see the same from fiberglass insulation in people who didn't wear masks while working with it. And the same with the lead and oil-based paint scare.

reply to post by munkey66
 



SO you are happy to introduce plant species which may not be harmfull to man and only harmful to those animals which nature relies on to keep a healthy ecology?


We generally try and keep other animals from eating our food - unless we plan to kill them, anyway. The exception, of course, would be the various cereals used to produce pet food.

reply to post by vonholland
 



by the fact that you said most of your diet is corn syrup, I know no member of ATS should be listening to you. Are you kidding us? you want to talk about health practices with a diet like that? Awful. You clearly do not care for your body at all


There is nothing wrong with corn syrup. I have a high calorie diet - what doesn't come from complex carbohydrates and protein generally comes from sweets. I guarantee you that I can surpass you in almost every physical metric. My diet is very intuitive and driven off of my body's needs.

Now - I eat healthy, unlike the vast majority of Americans (even ones who think they eat healthy). The main problems arising from corn syrup consumption involve its typical application in beverages. It should be common sense that a spaghetti dinner, while containing, say, 450 calories, will keep you from feeling hungry much longer than a 2-liter of cola (about 800 calories). It's far easier to over-shoot your caloric needs by a substantial margin if you consume sweetened beverages.

There are no credible studies that causally link corn syrup consumption to any health effects in humans. You could go on about weight, diabetes, liver damage, etc - and what it would all come down to is that none of these studies have any controls on them. Being overweight, alone, is known to cause a number of health problems - someone who consumes a large amount of fructose is more likely to be overweight - thus skewing any correlations between populations with high intakes of fructose and health disorders.

Now - I'm not going to tell you I always have the best of habits - I like soda, and will go through several liters a day if available and not bothering to control myself. Why am I the skinniest guy in the room? Because I don't eat a plate full of nothing but starches, carbohydrates, fried foods, etc every time I get the chance. I max out at about three slices of pizza, one plate of food at a buffet (sometimes a second trip for fruit and/or ice-cream), that sort of thing. I like color on my plate - perhaps it's my inner-artist or some instinctive craving for nutrition - but I cannot stand to eat a meal that is only oils, starches, and carbs.

When in a 'performance' lifestyle, I switch over to kool-ade or some other sweetened drink mix (some artificially sweetened varieties are acceptable) and I keep a one-liter or larger water bottle ready with a container of mix in my pack. I'll easily hit 1K calories a day. Of course, when in those environments, I'm on a 4K calorie diet. The high water and sugar intake helps keep my metabolism up.

The trick to losing weight is to keep your metabolism up. Down-size meals and snack on much smaller portions. Drink plenty of water, and it wouldn't hurt to keep a small bag of hard candy on hand - when you feel 'down,' - take one (just one). The glucose stimulates insulin release, and will boost your metabolism for a while. A cup of coffee or tea will also work - possibly better, as the caffeine boosts metabolism, similarly.

The main thing is to pay attention to your body. It knows what is going on better than any princeton study on lab rats. If you get ill after eating something - avoid it. If you get sick when you eat a lot of something - don't eat that much. If you have a particular craving for something - consider filling it within reasonable confines. Don't slam down food faster than your body can register how full you have become - take time to eat.

Hunger is not an inconvenience - it is a very useful indicator. We have taken up a habit of eating because we are not full, or simply to be comfortable (rather than actually fed). This is partly why "everything is bad for you" - because we eat it in completely the wrong way.

You can choose to listen to what I have to say, or discredit it based on the fact that I am just as human as everyone else. In the end - I do have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about - far more than your average health-food salesman who doesn't know the difference between a chemical and an enzyme. You are more than welcome to buy into an alarmist market of "organic" produce based on hyped claims and invalid studies that would receive failing marks in grade-school science.

My main beef with the seed market is the dominance of self-terminating crops - IE; the produce from most seeds on the market is infertile and will not sprout and/or yield. This concerns me, as it creates a rather interesting scenario should some sort of global catastrophe disrupt the production and distribution of seeds that account for the vast majority of the market. Demand would not be capable of being met by "heirloom" companies, and when the food isn't being grown, it pretty much spells the end of organized society. People tend to get a little upset over not having anything to eat, for some odd reason or another.

This is why I say it would -not- be a bad idea for communities to self-organize and create their own areas for agricultural production and development (cities would want to gravitate towards hydroponics, rural areas towards setting aside a plot of land and maintaining it). They could man it in whatever ways they saw fit - but the idea would be to have a self-sustaining set of crops and seeds in place that could be expanded in the case of adversity to preserve some semblance of social order.

But that idea doesn't paint anyone as the enemy or seek to make people feel cheated out of some abstract right or privilege - so it's not going to be popular.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Northwarden
 



SO you are happy to introduce plant species which may not be harmfull to man and only harmful to those animals which nature relies on to keep a healthy ecology?


We generally try and keep other animals from eating our food - unless we plan to kill them, anyway. The exception, of course, would be the various cereals used to produce pet food.

That did not answer the question,
Are you happy to introduce species into the enviroment which may be detromental?
GM plants may be fine on a farm, but wind blows and seeds spread and national parks are then infected with not only an introduced species, but a species with no natural enemy



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Northwarden
 



SO you are happy to introduce plant species which may not be harmfull to man and only harmful to those animals which nature relies on to keep a healthy ecology?


We generally try and keep other animals from eating our food - unless we plan to kill them, anyway. The exception, of course, would be the various cereals used to produce pet food.

That did not answer the question,
Are you happy to introduce species into the enviroment which may be detromental?
GM plants may be fine on a farm, but wind blows and seeds spread and national parks are then infected with not only an introduced species, but a species with no natural enemy


Not to mention the fact that GMO plants are modified against pests, which to Monsanto are Bees.
The death of the Bee would be DEVASTATING to all NATURAL crops. Where by means of food production would be via GMO crops ONLY.

Which is 100% unacceptable.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




This is a no-brainer for someone working with small gardens (an acre or less). Doesn't work as well with large-scale industrial crops.


Breaking down the farm size into acre plots or thousand acre plots doesn't make a difference, if you are strategically planting crops to seed sub-varieties alongside a main crop. In fact, it would be no harder than mixing the seed proportionately, and mixing it well before it went into a spreader. I have to respect a full-fledged industrial crop though - nothing half-hearted about that deal. Expensive irrigation, Monsanto seed, half-a-million in farm equipment minimum, full plowing, tilling, seeding, aeration, a genocidal war against all rodents, deer, groundhogs, insects, and a shotgun and fence for the neighbours!


Those sub-earth micro-organisms, worms, beetles, and other lifeforms are your tillers and your oxen replacement.


No, they aren't. While many are beneficial - they are no substitute for responsible tilling practices.



No, sorry - most soils are insufficient for providing much in the line of fruit-bearing plants. Certainly not in the amounts necessary to even partially sustain human civilization.


Five thousand years of tilling turns soil to sand. Ten thousand years using the Chinese method turned it into some of the worlds richest soils. If you leave a patch of earth alone in a half-decent growing climate, it will eventually become a forest - we can only mimic the efficiency already in place, and at an expense. Cranberries thrive in swamps, walnuts can be grown even in our Canadian boreal forests, apple trees need moisture, but not incredibly rich soil - they grow in clay just fine, and the berries mentioned so far are hardy enough to survive drought and poor nutrition (soil) although the fruit suffers. If you had said they stand a good chance of being choked out by more aggressive varieties, I would have agreed with your logic.


The reason you plow so that the roots are exposed in the winter is to kill any nematodes and other nasty little bugs that like to hang out in old root systems between cycles.


Most soil contains nematodes, and they are admittedly not beneficial for root systems.
Obviously it does not fit in well with this eastern philosophy, as it has the same destructive effect on the entire sub-earth ecosystem. I realize root systems can be invaded, and this could wipe out a crop. This becomes a liability to overcome, which few modern farmers wants to think about "since they know better", and I would not be surprised if crop insurance insists on utilizing western methods. Insurance companies may insist on doing things the western way for a handful of sound reasons, meantime propping the farmers in exchange for selling out to the system.

Once established, the untilled, mulched crops of the eastern fields have bountiful harvests, and minimal insect problems despite no pesticide usage. The benefits include an organic harvest, investing very little time and cost (compared to western methods), and showing respect for nature in all natures forms. Historically it required a much deeper understanding of biodiversity than we are accustomed to: mixed fields were common and largely prevented the need to rotate crops. A lot of ancient crops have been lost to agriculture as minority plant strains were replaced with popular varieties - there were hundreds of varieties of potatoes centuries ago, for example. This bottleneck of variety (such as we see in supermarkets) is only an illusion. Organic growers can grow their own strains, which will adapt over the years quite naturally to conditions, and then can lend once again to a harmonious biodiversity. No genetic modification is needed by man, nor added costs to health or pocketbooks.

edit on 21-11-2010 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Read the story about Starlite or Starlight Corn by Monsanto. Tests were performed on the nutritional content and all was well. Thousands of pigs died of starvation because they were unable to process the protein. It was either a Monsanto or ADM product. It has been quite a few years and I do not remember the details as to the manufacturer. There are many examples. video.google.ca...# I am a farmer and have used both GMO and non GMO. When you break down the numbers, the profit of non GMO vs GMO does not make it worth it. I never have to buy seed, fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide. I only add minerals and balance my pH. There is also a huge difference in taste. My money is spent locally rather than given to Monsanto and ADM. You probably believe that the government is protecting you and would never do anything to protect big business. Why do you think less that one percent of the population in the US farms? When was the last generation of your family that grew its own food? I know what I am talking about because I do it every day. It is how I make my living. No one I know will buy any seed that can not be replanted the next generation. What happens when seed is not available or too expensive to buy? My next generation knows how to farm and we will survive without big Ag and have enough excess to feed hundreds of others. When your money becomes worthless, how do you plan to feed your family? My variety of rice and beans are well over 150 years old and have never had plagues. I have an unlimited water supply. I refuse to eat the Frankenfood and am healthier than I have ever been in my life. I don't buy the story that crossing species is unharmful. It is un-natural and no one knows the consequences of what effects it will have on our future food and humanity. Read about the 50,000 farmers in India who committed suicide when their alleged Monsanto drought resistant rice crop failed and were unable to repay the loans for seed, pesticides, herbicides and interest. Ask their families how they feel about GMOs.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Well, again, I appreciate your candor, but candor does not justify reasoning. Tea has been consumed for thousands of years, and time is that which I emphasized as the only trustworthy test. I understand that you will not relent in your abstract support of GMOs or disregard for logic, so I wish to discontinue wasting my time. Thanks and good luck.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The real question is why have the people of the United States allowed the use of GMO food to enter the food chain? Europe is way ahead when it comes to protecting their population against GMO food and the effects of eating the Modified food. It is though it is inbreaded into humanity that men and women have to control other men and women. Monsanto is controlling the crops the farmers grow and the food you eat to your table. What if Monsanto does not like the political views in Red States or Blue States can they cut back the supply of food to those states? ^Y^
edit on 22-11-2010 by amari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Yes, because making crops that will grow with a minimum of water for sub-Saharan Africa is such a sham. Making food that can grow in places where food normally doesn't grow is a scam...

There's also one interesting thing going on here that cannot be denied: These people had to use a lot of fertilizer, a lot of quality soil, and a lot of water for this (well, that is if their yield figures are accurate). You simply cannot get the same quality and same quantity of those necessary items in the starving parts of the world.

Also one last thing. A lot of people here seem to think that GMO food will have adverse effects on humans...how? How does GMO food hurt me if I eat it? What's 'Frankenfood' going to do to me physically?


It would be absolutely wonderful if we could get africa out of starvation, yet this is not what GMO foods are for. They give us all the possible pros and give us the cons in fine print which only a few of us can see. They are giving you honey with your medicine: there giving you the sweet side of it so you dont taste the sour.
If they just came out and told us that uno, its alot more economic but it just may kill you do you think anyone would listen?

Africa has purposely been left out of world trade, it is a continent that all the developed countries use as extra resorces. Cokacola owns many of there water sources.
Now, if they really wanted to take africa out of poverty this would have happeneed looooong ago. It was probably the developed countries that put them in poverty in the first place.
You also know that there intentions arent all that pure when in some countries (iran) it is illegal to own non GMO seeds and plants.

Now, how does GMO products hurt you? Research on aspartame to name one, also high fructose corn syrup. This could be such a good thing but you dont even know who is playing with your food nor there intentions. Considering almost all of the major corporations are inter-connected at this point its not so absurd to think they have the same intentions, like WHO dramatizing swine flu to inject us with mercury.
And its not just what GMO does to us personally, we are playing with nature and have no idea what it could do to us or the food. Imagine some scientist messes up and the 5th gen of corn decides to commit suicide?
Either way, it would be great if it were to be used to rid world hunger but it wont. but by all means come back in 5 years and tell me if there are no more impovished ethiopians around.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by amari
 


America is the home ground of GMO products, so it would be alot easier to trick their population into believing it was beneficial. Europe probably caught wind and decided to do something against it.
Unfourtunetly, the desire for power is always going to be around, yet the only way you can gain power is through other people. Because if there are no other people, what are you really in control of?
We all have the power to strip them of their power, our eyes are just so wide shut that we are completely oblivious to it.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
you know it europe they put labels on everythign to clearely tell you where it came from and if it is GMO. I think we need to adopt the same standard. I will tell you however that much of the food you eat, especially frozen is GMO. Good bad right wrong it is that way.





new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join