As virtuous people, we expect corporations to act with a sense of fundamental human decency. We expect them to behave within the boundaries of respecting human life, honest business practices and reliable science. We (naively) wish that corporations would act like decent human beings. But they don't. In their quest for profit at any cost, they violate the basic tenets of virtue. They betray humanity. They destroy life. They malign Mother Nature herself, and in doing so, they threaten the very future of sustainable life on our planet.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by hawkiye
I don't see any problem with GMO Soybeans. I eat very little so the effects on me will be slight. If other people are dumb enough to eat them, what can I say. It is their life, they can do whatever they want to shorten it. GMO foods are just one of many changes taking place too fast. I understand that some people can eat them and some can't. Soy protein should be banned from being used so widely in food, increasing the soy we eat so fast is the worst part of the whole thing, soy products are used everywhere, that's not good. Monsanto has ties to companies making meds, that is a monopoly if I ever heard of one. Produce products that can sicken people and put them in everything. A person can easily overdose on soy proteins and oils. This will give Cronic health problems which show up after years of consumption. Well, I know much more that won't be evident to those who run Monsanto, they will be plagued with health problems themselves, even though they do not eat these products themselves. Monsanto does not want to pay health and retirement to their employees either, that is not profitable.
Anyone got a better way to reduce the world population? See, Monsanto is doing a good job.edit on 23-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
As for soybeans, approximately 85% of the world's soybean crop is processed into soybean meal and vegetable oil. The bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil production, with the high-protein defatted and "toasted" soy meal used as livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the U.S. soybean crop is used for livestock feed A smaller percentage of soybeans are used directly for human consumption.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by rayuki
The beef I eat is organic grass fed, the fish I eat is locally caught. the pork I eat is store bought but we don't get it often. Chickens are my biggest source and that could be a problem. I eat very little soybean oils other than a little when we eat out, I do eat butter though, possibly effected by the soybenas protein.
I try to eat 75 percent or more real food. I wish the foods were mostly organic and GMO food didn't exist. I know it's impossible for me to do anything other than stay out of the way of the bulldozer as it mows down Americas people.edit on 23-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
I would also lean more toward the likely cause being the herbicide/pesticide rather than the genetic modification. In the case of roundup resistant crops, the whole point of the genetic modification is that roundup can be used to kill weeds but not the crops. So, if you don't use roundup, then there's no point in using the genetically modified roundup resistant crops. And the way roundup works is by being absorbed by the plants. So it may not be just residue, it may be fully absorbed into the inside of the plant such that there's no way to wash it off.
Originally posted by charles1952
Second, there is a real question in the study, that I would appreciate someone explaining to me. They seem unsure whether the problem came from pesticide residue, or whether it was from the genetic modification itself. they seem to be leaning pretty heavily towards the pesticide residue. Is that residue an indispensible part of the modification, or can it be removed? If the residue could be removed or rendered harmless, GM crops may be good to go.
Worldwide, over half of all agricultural production passes through the hands of a co-op on its way to market.
Industrial agriculture, based on the NPK mentality of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium-based fertilisers leads to depletion of vital micronutrients and trace elements such as magnesium, zinc, calcium and iron. David Thomas, a geologist-turned-nutritionist, discovered that between 1940 and 1991, vegetables had lost - on an average - 24 per cent of their magnesium, 46 per cent of their calcium, 27 per cent of their iron and no less than 76 per cent of their copper (Ref: David Thomas "A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to us as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991", Nutrition and Health, 2003; 17(2): 85-115). Carrots had lost 75 per cent of their calcium, 46 per cent of their iron, and 75 per cent of their copper. Potatoes had lost 30 per cent of their magnesium, 35 per cent calcium, 45 per cent iron and 47 per cent copper. To get the same amount of nutrition, people will need to eat much more food. The increase in "yields" of empty mass does not translate into more nutrition. In fact it is leading to malnutrition.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by hawkiye
I have been against them from the first time. I heard of them, there is nothing to be gained by genetically splicing unknown dna into ununderstood dna to create untested new species that are nolw tested on humanity.
I thought the food and drug administration was suppossed to be regulating this. Oh that's right, I forgot, they only regulate money from lobyists into their bank accounts. Hence all the class action lawsuits for "medicines" causing loss of life and limbs at a break neck speed.
It seems like every time I see an add for a new drug, within 2 years I see the lawyers pimping their services to sue them.
Agreed even the commercials for drugs they are pushing most of the commercial is taken up by all the side effects the drug has. The supposed cure is worse then the disease. They are telling right on TV they want you to take poisons that will harm you and then list the harms it causes (that they know of) and then act like it is good for you... The sad part is how many people go to their doctor and request the poison dutifully as they were told to by these drug pushers...
In the May 1998 issue of Research Review, a publication of the university's Office of Research and Technology Transfer, Muscoplat's predecessor vowed that the school would become a national leader in agricultural biotech. "If we do not do it," wrote then-ag dean Mike Martin, "we will have failed in our responsibility as a land-grant university, and we will have set society back." In the same article, Martin touted the university's acquisition of St. Louis-based Monsanto Corp.'s Roundup Ready gene--a transgenic technology that has since become a target of GM crop opponents. In addition, he related an anecdote about a university researcher who, when asked if he could increase the size of soybeans, responded: "For enough money I'll make 'em the size of basketballs."