Emails Show White House Promotes Genetically Engineered Crops in Wildlife Refuges

Emails Show White House Promotes Genetically Engineered Crops in Wildlife Refuges

www.truthout.com

The Obama administration is supporting genetically engineered (GE) agriculture in more than 50 national wildlife refuges across the country and watchdog groups say internal emails among top administration officials reveal that the GE plots are a priority in the White House.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The land grab for food is on people. I just came across this, checked on the site and found nothing.

I guess that it just goes to show that the most important livestock to the emerging new order is the human livestock. We'll happily kill off all the animals and their habitats as long as we can support and feed our burgeoning human capital reserves. Not that we don't have a right to be fed but we have to ask ourselves if the main purpose of this planet is to sustain just us or the rare treasury of life that this beautiful blue gem entrusts us with.


www.truthout.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

95% of our food is already GE.
you're a little late to the party.

reply to post by Ghost375


Did you read the article? Its not about GM food but about where they plan to get the land and what they plan to do with it once its done. And in Europe we're very resistant to GM food there's not a lot of it over here.

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Did you read the article? Its not about GM food but about where they plan to get the land and what they plan to do with it once its done. And in Europe we're very resistant to GM food there's not a lot of it over here.

why u gentically made seeds. when ppl never did before they lived plenty of time without genetically enginnered food

I really do not understand this. Are they just tired of raping the food supply and want to mess with the rest of nature or do they know something is coming and trying to prepare the land. The economic motives make no sense in this, but when did that stop some things.

It would have been interesting if there actually had been the text of the emails. Rather than an interpretation of what the emails said. Without the proof the article is useless.

The White House is engaging in a joint effort with Monsanto ... and as we understand it, it's part of a White House pledge to double exports," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

"These plans are based on the curious notion that wildlife benefit from having the small slivers of habitat set aside for them covered by genetically engineered soybeans," Ruch said of the program in an earlier release. "To boost US exports, the Obama administration is forcing wildlife refuges into political prostitution."

So since the people are resisting gmos in their fields, they target wildlife refuges to generate dollars? Gotta please the people that support ya I guess. This sounds like a matter of convenience and exploitation of less restricted lands. Afterall the animals can't complain.

As per federal law - all genetically engineered crop fields have to have a non-genetically modified counter part that is at least, I believe, 1/4 the size.

So, I'm not really seeing the whole anti-GM crowd being justified. They are obnoxious and should be treated with all the regard of a mosquito.

As for the plan of doubling exports by using wildlife reserves to grow crops.... I don't see it working too well. There are considerable issues with harvesting. For starters - the incorporation and unionization of farmers has lead to a lot of price-fixing schemes where crops are simply let to whither in order to drive up prices to a point where harvesting becomes profitable. There are also issues where some farms simply cannot harvest all of their crops.

It's not a land-mass issue so much as it is a utilization and logistics issue. If we want to increase exports of our food, we are going to need to seriously pump up our transportation infrastructure (revitalized railways, shipyards, etc) and figure out how to get other countries to buy them.

mentioned here also

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Aim64C

So, I'm not really seeing the whole anti-GM crowd being justified. They are obnoxious and should be treated with all the regard of a mosquito.

Yeah, who cares if they are untested and may have unknown consequences on humans and the environment?

It's not a land-mass issue so much as it is a utilization and logistics issue. If we want to increase exports of our food, we are going to need to seriously pump up our transportation infrastructure (revitalized railways, shipyards, etc) and figure out how to get other countries to buy them.

Why do we need to increase our food exports? The US already exports an ENORMOUS amount of food (most of it surplus created by agricultural subsides).

What the US needs to do is invest in a realistic, long term, sustainable food program that takes into account the findings here:

UN: Small Farms Key to Global Food Security

eatdrinkbetter.com...

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by Ghost375

 

Did you read the article? Its not about GM food but about where they plan to get the land and what they plan to do with it once its done. And in Europe we're very resistant to GM food there's not a lot of it over here.

Well, it's about Soy. Which is often (but not always) used for food.

"These plans are based on the curious notion that wildlife benefit from having the small slivers of habitat set aside for them covered by genetically engineered soybeans," Ruch said of the program in an earlier release. "To boost US exports, the Obama administration is forcing wildlife refuges into political prostitution."

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Yeah, who cares if they are untested and may have unknown consequences on humans and the environment?

They are tested more thoroughly than any other hybridized plant out there.

Further - there's no credible study that has ever demonstrated a health concern related to genetically modified plants. For starters - if you knew half of what you though you did, you'd realize the entire concept of "unknown consequences" in genetics is purely the nonsense of hollywierd.

Honestly, get over yourself. You don't sit there every morning and contemplate whether or not you should get up and -drive- to work on some of the most lethal roads in the world. You drive like every other person and, from time to time, are the dumb ass-hat that doesn't know how to drive - just like everyone else. Only luck and the skill of other drivers have kept you from perishing on those roads.

Let's raise a big issue about plants that -might- be harmful to you... because... well - because you honestly know nothing of the science and just think it could be bad.

Why do we need to increase our food exports? The US already exports an ENORMOUS amount of food (most of it surplus created by agricultural subsides).

Why shouldn't we increase exports?

Plenty of hungry people in the world. Egypt would probably swallow their pride and eat some food from the U.S. Or starve... works to our benefit either way.

What the US needs to do is invest in a realistic, long term, sustainable food program that takes into account the findings here:

UN: Small Farms Key to Global Food Security

What did you smoke before hopping on your computer today? Farming practices - as they are - have been around for quite a long time... and they wouldn't be unrealistic if we have such a surplus, now would they? As for 'heirloom' seeds - there's quite a market for that - even in the factory business.

We will see a trend back toward family farming in the coming years, I believe - but it won't be because it's more realistic, more long-term, etc - but because we are going to see it become more practical from the logistical standpoint with rising fuel costs and the inflation of the dollar. Food is one of the few secure investments out there - people need it at all costs - the costs of almost everything else rise and fall with the average price of food. Sure - if things get bad enough, you'll probably have to hire some ex-military people to shoot anyone who tries to steal your crops - but that's just entrepreneurs knowing how to use their work experience and apply it to the market.

Really, though, it will just be too expensive to practically ship food for human consumption all over the U.S. when it can be grown just outside the city or by industrious souls with hydroponic solutions - and delivered only a few miles from harvesting rather than a few hundred/thousand miles. Diets will become more seasonal and local - oranges will be harder to come by in the northern latitudes, for example.

Originally posted by Aim64C



They are tested more thoroughly than any other hybridized plant out there.

. Unfortunately, these tests are done by the company who owns the patent to these plants, and they predictably tell us their product is just fine!. They dont allow any outside agencies to verify their 'results'.

Further - there's no credible study that has ever demonstrated a health concern related to genetically modified plants.

That's not the point, obfuscator. It is up to the industry to prove it is safe, not vice versa. They have not done that.

quote]For starters - if you knew half of what you though you did, you'd realize the entire concept of "unknown consequences" in genetics is purely the nonsense of hollywierd.

You're kidding right?

Honestly, get over yourself. You don't sit there every morning and contemplate whether or not you should get up and -drive- to work on some of the most lethal roads in the world. You drive like every other person and, from time to time, are the dumb ass-hat that doesn't know how to drive - just like everyone else. Only luck and the skill of other drivers have kept you from perishing on those roads.

Let's raise a big issue about plants that -might- be harmful to you... because... well - because you honestly know nothing of the science and just think it could be bad.

You're so far away from the truth, it's humorous. I suspect you havent researched this subject for more than five minutes. FAIL.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

. Unfortunately, these tests are done by the company who owns the patent to these plants, and they predictably tell us their product is just fine!. They dont allow any outside agencies to verify their 'results'.

There are countless studies done by third party groups and multiple government agencies from governments around the world.

Not a single one utilizing proper experimental controls has ever demonstrated so much as a correlation between consumption of genetically modified foods to any problems - much less a causal link.

That's not the point, obfuscator. It is up to the industry to prove it is safe, not vice versa. They have not done that.

How do you prove something safe?

Let me guess - you're part of the crowd: "Aspirin isn't safe! Take 13 of those and it'll be the last headache you ever have! Big pharma tries to say it's safe!" - often used to argue the validity of herbal remedies; when any decent herbalist/pharmacognicist understands that just handling some medicinal plants can kill you (nightshade, for example).

You don't prove something safe. You outline ways in which it is unsafe and compare that to how it will be used. Most house plants are poisonous - a poinsettia will kill your cat, dog, and daughter/son if they get too curious with it - many lilies are also quite toxic. But people buy house plants to look at - not to eat or rub in their eye. So it is generally considered safe - as a house plant.

Trampolines are generally rather safe - so long as you aren't jumping on it with ten other people and using it to vault yourself into a pool.

You get the idea.

You're kidding right?

No. I'm not.

Please, enlighten me to my own stupidity.

You're so far away from the truth, it's humorous. I suspect you havent researched this subject for more than five minutes. FAIL.

Really? That's it?

Let's presume I only researched the subject for five minutes (and have no relevant education/experience on the matter). You're sitting there smashing the "believe me" button while relying on impromptu speech/theater.

Would you care to describe why genetic engineering has "unpredictable consequences?" Spare me the typical "we've never done this before" bologna - nothing in genetically engineered crops is new to the biological world - or without parallel in other plants (plenty of plants have more/less vitamin diversity and the presence of various self-defense toxins). Why is what is going on now going to lead to something "unpredictable?"

Or - I should say - how is it going to be any -more- unpredictable than your average corn crop that could grow a wild hair up its rectum and produce a new sugar group that ends up being toxic to us?

Display some kind of competency regarding genetics and I'll chew on my foot for a bit to apologize for outright tossing you in the wanna-be bin - but you get nowhere with me without giving sound reasons.

I am perfectly fine with people who just say: "I don't want to eat that, and won't buy it." - That's a sound, down-to-earth reason for doing something. Going on some kind of crusade, however, requires a completely different level of rationale. You need some demonstrable and logical reasons for it. Or you're simply reacting out of fear.

All there is to it.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

. Unfortunately, these tests are done by the company who owns the patent to these plants, and they predictably tell us their product is just fine!. They dont allow any outside agencies to verify their 'results'.

There are countless studies done by third party groups and multiple government agencies from governments around the world.

ORLY? Show me some.

How do you prove something safe?

Well, clearly by just dumping it into the environment to see what happens, right?! Not years,decades, more if necessary of research in isolated circumstances, where drift is not possible.

Let me guess - you're part of the crowd: "Aspirin isn't safe! Take 13 of those and it'll be the last headache you ever have! Big pharma tries to say it's safe!" - often used to argue the validity of herbal remedies; when any decent herbalist/pharmacognicist understands that just handling some medicinal plants can kill you (nightshade, for example).

Lol.

You don't prove something safe. You outline ways in which it is unsafe and compare that to how it will be used. Most house plants are poisonous - a poinsettia will kill your cat, dog, and daughter/son if they get too curious with it - many lilies are also quite toxic. But people buy house plants to look at - not to eat or rub in their eye. So it is generally considered safe - as a house plant.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, but this is quite entertaining. Where are you getting this from??

I have not claimed that GMO's are known to turn us into genetic hybrid humans, or 5-toed sloths. I have said that your initial claims that GMO's will 'feed the world' are nonsense. This is proven again and again. Monanto's 'technology' becomes dependent on it's own products, before needing MORE and MORE to achieve the same results. GMO crops dont increase yields in the long run.

They deplete the soil of its nutrients, require heavier applications of pesticides, harm natural pollinators, and cross-pollinate with other crops. The list of the known problems with this 'miracle science' go on and on, and yet you avoid all of this in favor of claiming I am scared of Aspirin and attempting to conflate the dangers of a poisonous plant with the unknown long term consequences of genetic manipulation in the food chain.

I'm not sure if you are trolling, or are just woefully misinformed, but either way, I challenge you to learn a bit more about this subject. Visit some local farms. Read some studies not sponsored by Monsanto.