It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Atrazine, Population Control and Lady Gaga

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:58 PM
Wow, great effort! S & F.

Yeah I think you're onto something here, (not sure about the Gaga link though!) will make sure to bookmark this and check back later, thanks again.
edit on 30-6-2012 by robhines because: added/typos

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

You know what your rhetoric sounds like to me? Mitt Romney's. "Repeal and "replace" the Affordable Healthcare Act." With what? That is what is the "replacement" plan? What are the impacts of the "replacement" plan?

What is your plan to "replace" "Atrazine" to makeup production shortfalls when it's not in use for crop productions? Because organic farming can't!

I don't agree with your assumption that there would be a shortage of food without the use of atrazine. That is the real rhetoric and propaganda being espoused here.

The World already produces enough food to feed everyone. Tons of food is wasted. You've fallen for lie meant to keep you a slave to the system.

The problem is not food production. It's food distribution. The large corporations are in it to make money and increase their profit margin as much as possible.

They have no interest in feeding the poor and hungry. 1 in 7 people are already going hungry today. Your argument is invalid.


In particular, organic agriculture delivers just 5 percent less yield in rain-watered legume crops, such as alfalfa or beans, and in perennial crops, such as fruit trees. But when it comes to major cereal crops, such as corn or wheat, and vegetables, such as broccoli, conventional methods delivered more than 25 percent more yield.


Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

What are the causes of hunger?

Poverty is the principal cause of hunger. The causes of poverty include poor people's lack of resources, an extremely unequal income distribution in the world and within specific countries, conflict, and hunger itself. As of 2008 (2005 statistics), the World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less.3 This compares to the later FAO estimate of 1.02 billion undernourished people. Extreme poverty remains an alarming problem in the world’s developing regions, despite some progress that reduced "dollar--now $1.25-- a day" poverty from (an estimated) 1900 million people in 1981, a reduction of 29 percent over the period. Progress in poverty reduction has been concentrated in Asia, and especially, East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people in extreme poverty has increased. The statement that 'poverty is the principal cause of hunger' is, though correct, unsatisfying. Why then are (so many) people poor? The next section summarizes Hunger Notes answer.

Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by robhines

Wow, great effort! S & F.

Yeah I think you're onto something here, (not sure about the Gaga link though!) will make sure to bookmark this and check back later, thanks again.

Thank you

The Lady Gaga theory was just a poor attempt to draw more attention to these issues. I'm afraid that it backfired.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:45 AM
and yet all we hear is Carbon Carbon and Carbon

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:57 AM
On the Australian news channel they said they took their entire Orange crop for the year, thousands of tons of Oranges...and dumped them into piles on the edge of a field.

They said on the news it was due to Brazil's ultra cheap orange exports to Australia. I didn't buy that. Likely their Orange crop was found toxic. I wonder which toxin?

Why don't you Aussia boys go get some of those oranges out their rotting and get them tested to find out what's in them? Nobody throws money away. Something is in them.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by Pervius

Thanks for your addition to this thread. I would be curious to know why they threw away all those oranges too.

I read that Australia is the number two exporter of oranges in the World second only to Brazil.

Surely they could have turned alll those oranges into frozen juice concentrate instead of letting them rot.

The amount of oranges Brazil exports is astounding though. Something like 80% of the supply.

The USA has recently banned Brazilian orange juice because they refused to stop using a chemical called carbendazim. A type of fungicide.

Here's an article

AUSTRALIAN companies are still importing orange juice from Brazil even though the US has temporarily stopped doing so because of health concerns.

US authorities suspected the use of a fungicide may have caused liver tumours in animals.

Read more: Link

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in