Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Current events (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   China says no to Frankencorn (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=8922)

CarlV 04-03-2015 09:50 PM

China says no to Frankencorn
 
It has to be bad if China bans it. :eek:

Quote:

China seems to be making alternative news headlines all over the planet by destroying several large shipments of genetically-modified (GM) corn and corn seeds originating from the United States. At least three shipments of GM corn were detected at the Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City when government officials successfully intercepted them. Another several cartons of GM corn seeds were destroyed in the northern Chinese city of Harbin.

China has a law in place that states any importing of GMOs must be accompanied by the appropriate environmental and food safety tests by Chinese chosen institutions, not the biotech companies that manufacture the food. Yet in the United States and Canada, they reject simple GMO labelling that would let citizens know what they are eating.

.................................................. ......................................

GMOs have been shown to be harmful to health in multiple ways. It’s no wonder they are banned in dozens of countries worldwide. Japan and South Korea even banned the import of wheat that was recently found to be littered with GMOs. Scientists also recently discovered that GMO crops can damage mammalian blood cells
Link


Carl

Boreas 04-03-2015 11:09 PM

We will never learn.

John

merrylander 04-04-2015 07:20 AM

Monsanto is a very powerful and unscrupulous company, but at least Canada does not allow the use of their rBST growth hormone in dairy cattle.

CarlV 04-04-2015 10:34 AM

But Rob, we needs our corn syrup. :eek:


Quote:

"The environmental footprint of HFCS is deep and wide," writes Pollan, a prominent critic of industrial agriculture. "Look no farther than the dead zone in the Gulf [of Mexico], an area the size of New Jersey where virtually nothing will live because it has been starved of oxygen by the fertilizer runoff coming down the Mississippi from the Corn Belt. Then there is the atrazine in the water in farm country -- a nasty herbicide that, at concentrations as little as 0.1 part per billion, has been shown to turn male frogs into hermaphrodites."

Milling and chemically altering corn to form high-fructose corn syrup also is energy-intensive. That's not to say that corn is evil and other foods aren't; all crops require energy to grow and transport. What makes corn a target is that federal subsidies -- and tariffs on imported sugar -- keep prices low, paving the way for widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup and, in the process, keeping the American palate accustomed to the sweetness it provides.

Corn is a useful crop with high yields, although it uses more fertilizers and insecticides and causes more soil erosion than other crops, according to David Pimentel, a professor in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. "Organic corn is not a large part of the industry, but it should be," he says. Pimentel published a study in 2005 demonstrating that, over 22 years, growing corn organically produced the same yields as conventional growing and used 33 percent less fuel.
Link

Carl

djv8ga 04-04-2015 03:53 PM

The politics in this country mislead the common American & destroy any real & honest discussion on the subject of food production & being good stewards of our land.

China is working extremely hard at improving their food supply & stopping desertification unlike this country.

d-ray657 04-04-2015 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 265825)
The politics in this country mislead the common American & destroy any real & honest discussion on the subject of food production & being good stewards of our land.

China is working extremely hard at improving their food supply & stopping desertification unlike this country.

How much of that do you think is due to the influence of multinational corporations and massive advertising, lobbying and PR campaigns?

Would you favor regulations governing land use and food engineering?

Regards,


D-Ray

djv8ga 04-04-2015 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 265829)
How much of that do you think is due to the influence of multinational corporations and massive advertising, lobbying and PR campaigns?

Would you favor regulations governing land use and food engineering?

Regards,


D-Ray

Your post just made my point.

d-ray657 04-04-2015 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 265831)
Your post just made my point.

I think we agree about recognizing the problem, but we might differ about how to go about neutralizing that influence. But at lease we agree that it is a problem - which should lead to some agreement that action is needed.

Regards,

D-Ray

djv8ga 04-04-2015 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657 (Post 265834)
I think we agree about recognizing the problem, but we might differ about how to go about neutralizing that influence. But at lease we agree that it is a problem - which should lead to some agreement that action is needed.

Regards,

D-Ray

The best thing anyone can do is support local small farms & orchards who produce quality food.
Here is an example of the food industry & government f$@&ing with a small farm who is providing quality pork in a humane & sustainable fashion. This kind of crap is happening everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=843yH_0RMIA

djv8ga 04-04-2015 05:19 PM

And how the government acts in court toward Mark. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUBcPtZ6O6U

donquixote99 04-04-2015 06:19 PM

It is not enough to observe how the government acts. The government (that is, the individuals who decide and do things) don't just roll dice to decide what to do. They have reasons. One must determine what those reasons are, to understand how to alter them.

I'm speaking here of policy and decision-making, not how the government attorney in the video dissed the rubes. That's just personality, with the 'I don't care' attitude of a fireproof civil servant. But he's not a decision-maker. He's not the important guy in that situation--that would be the judge, and whoever the judge listens to.

djv8ga 04-04-2015 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 265850)
It is not enough to observe how the government acts. The government (that is, the individuals who decide and do things) don't just roll dice to decide what to do. They have reasons. One must determine what those reasons are, to understand how to alter them.

You're right. You need to be actively growing food on a responsible small farm or working on Permaculture projects to understand how bad it's getting.

donquixote99 04-04-2015 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 265861)
You're right. You need to be actively growing food on a responsible small farm or working on Permaculture projects to understand how bad it's getting.

The trouble and sorrow we've seen usually seems special, and it's easy to feel nobody eles knows it, or can know it, or will care. But it's a good idea not to run too far with such assumptions.

merrylander 04-05-2015 07:33 AM

We get our milk from a dairy in PA that absolutely refuses to inject their dairy herd with that Monsanto rBST crap.

merrylander 04-05-2015 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 265850)
It is not enough to observe how the government acts. The government (that is, the individuals who decide and do things) don't just roll dice to decide what to do. They have reasons. One must determine what those reasons are, to understand how to alter them.

I'm speaking here of policy and decision-making, not how the government attorney in the video dissed the rubes. That's just personality, with the 'I don't care' attitude of a fireproof civil servant. But he's not a decision-maker. He's not the important guy in that situation--that would be the judge, and whoever the judge listens to.

The judge is probably listening to (and taking money from) Agribusiness and corporations such as Monsanto.:rolleyes:

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 08:15 AM

First things first. There is no legitimate data based on studies employing legitimate scientific method that suggest that GMO's are dangerous to anybody's health. But some of us will continue to credit those who tell us so. The same head cases who tell us that autism is caused by vaccinations, and who tell us that sugar causes cancer. And bastions of science like collective-evolution.com.:rolleyes:

Second thing second. The Chinese apparently have no problem with the products they ship here being full of actual poisons as identified by studies employing actual scientific method.

Lead pain in children's toys.
Diethylene glycol in toothpaste.
Mercury in cosmetic skin creams.
Carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen sulfide in drywall.
And I suppose it's only pets, but anyway...contaminated pet food.

The list goes on and on. I'm sure we ship stuff to China full of stuff that is bad for us. We buy stuff domestically that is full of stuff that is bad for us, or the environment, or that we will find out is bad for us down the road. Toothpaste with plastic micro-beads in it comes immediately to mind.

But genetically modified corn?:rolleyes:

merrylander 04-05-2015 08:24 AM

Ike I have no problem with plant 'engineering' as Mendel did it but I would not trust those bastards at Monsanto.

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander (Post 265896)
Ike I have no problem with plant 'engineering' as Mendel did it but I would not trust those bastards at Monsanto.

I don't trust most anybody, rob. But I do trust legitimate results from legitimate programs providing research done through legitimate scientific method. A non-partisan organization with a relatively flawless reputation, the National Geographic Society, supports that there is no scientific evidence that genetically engineered corn is dangerous to human health, or that vaccination causes autism, or that the earth is flat...among other nonsense that remarkably high percentages of Americans have decided to believe.

Boreas 04-05-2015 08:37 AM

You understand that the FDA doesn't actually test anything, right? Typically, they make their determinations based solely on the information provided by the manufacturer.

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 09:51 AM

You understand that there are numerous independent scientifically based organizations who have examined the data from studies on GMO's, whether supplied by the industry or not... and not one of them that i can find has made a determination that agrees with the headcase individuals and faux-scientific web pages that GMO's are going to kill us all, or vaccinations will reduce our progeny to hand waving autistics, or any of the rest of it.

Boreas 04-05-2015 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265902)
You understand that there are numerous independent scientifically based organizations who have examined the data from studies on GMO's, whether supplied by the industry or not... and not one of them that i can find has made a determination that agrees with the headcase individuals and faux-scientific web pages that GMO's are going to kill us all, or vaccinations will reduce our progeny to hand waving autistics, or any of the rest of it.

Why have so many other "first world" nations outlawed GMOs?

merrylander 04-05-2015 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 265905)
Why have so many other "first world" nations outlawed GMOs?

In fact I believe it is just this sort of thing that is holding up the trade talks with the EU.

They also thought that Lipitor was safe until quite recently.

But then since Monsanto nearly killed my wife before I even had the chance to meet her I have a personal vendetta with them

CarlV 04-05-2015 10:30 AM

Quote:

To protect our health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum legal residue levels for every pesticide, for dozens of crops. But a new study in the respected journal Toxicology has shown that, at low levels that are currently legal on our food, Roundup weed killer could cause DNA damage, endocrine disruption and cell death. The study, conducted by French researchers, shows glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic to human reproductive cells.

The potential real-life risks from this are infertility, low sperm count, and prostate or testicular cancer. But, “Symptoms could be so subtle, they would be easy to overlook,” says Theo Colborn, president of The Endocrine Disruption Exchange. “Timing is of critical importance. If a pregnant woman were to be exposed early in gestation, it looks like these herbicides could have an effect during the sexual differentiation stage. They really lock in on testosterone.” The bottom line is more research is needed before we can fully understand the effects of glyphosate exposure.

A Perfect Poison

The researchers’ most disturbing findings were not only the cytotoxic and hormonal responses to low-dose exposures, but the fact that the “active” ingredient — glyphosate — had much less of a toxic impact alone than the branded chemical mixtures sold to homeowners and farmers nationwide.

Solvents and surfactants, legally considered “inert ingredients,” are mixed with glyphosate in products such as Roundup weed killer to create chemical formulations that increase mobility and more direct access to the cells. “Those same factors that aid penetration into a plant, also aid penetration into the skin,” says Vincent Garry, professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Minnesota. “These chemicals are designed to kill cells.”

Despite being termed “inert,” these added (and usually secret) ingredients are anything but benign, as the manufacturers have claimed for decades. The new French research found the surfactants not only amplify the effects of glyphosate, but glyphosate also amplifies the effects of the surfactants. Basically, one plus one equals something larger than two.

Herbicide manufacturers are subject to fewer rules in the testing of inert ingredients than they are for active ingredients, explains Caroline Cox, research director at the Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, Calif. “The tests the EPA requires for inert ingredients cover only a small range of potential health problems,” Cox says. “Testing for birth defects, cancer, and genetic damage are required only on the active ingredients. But we’re exposed to both.”
Quote:

Glyphosate, mostly in the form of Roundup products manufactured by the Monsanto Co., has been widely used in the United States since the 1970s. Today, we spray more than 100 million pounds on our yards and farms every year, making it the most popular of the Monsanto chemicals. Monsanto continues to assure us its product is safe. “It’s used to protect schools,” a Monsanto spokesperson told Scientific American. Protect schools?! From what, killer weeds?

Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in recent years because of the widespread adoption of genetically modified corn, soy, and cotton varieties that Monsanto developed to be resistant to glyphosate, according to the Center for Food Safety. Although the companies promoted glyphosate-resistant crops as a way to reduce herbicide use, there’s actually been a sharp increase in use on corn, soybeans, and cotton since 2002, thanks to the emergence of resistant weeds. Farmers are battling glyphosate-resistant weeds with more glyphosate and other herbicides.

Most of the food we eat that contains corn or soy was sprayed with glyphosate herbicide, and we’re being exposed to higher and higher levels of residue. In response to petitions from Monsanto, the EPA has approved up to 20-fold increases in the legal residue limits for food crops.

“Our bodies are gigantic spider webs of chemical communications that work in the parts-per-trillion range,” says Warren Porter, professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin. “When you put so-called ‘insignificant’ amounts of toxic chemicals into the mix, you have a molecular bull in a china shop. The possibilities for impact are endless.”
Better Testing Coming

In response to growing public concerns, the EPA is getting ready to launch new tests on 67 potential endocrine disruptors. Critics say the proposed tests will cover only a portion of organs in the endocrine system, but supporters say it is at least a step in the right direction.
Link

75 years ago nobody thought much of smoking cigarettes turning lung cancer from unusual to a rather commonplace occurance in the world of Oncology.

Cigarettes are good for you commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y_N4u0uRQ

Carl

Boreas 04-05-2015 11:19 AM

Most countries have the eminently sensible policy of approving foods, drugs, pesticides on the strength of proven safety. The US, on the other hand, approves them on a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" basis. They're fine unless you can prove that they aren't.

Meanwhile, there's a growing body of evidence pointing to Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a human carcinogen. How long has Roundup been on the market? How long have we been eating it?

John

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 12:08 PM

Silly me...I thought we were talking about genetically engineered corn, not Roundup. Which has an officially identified half life of 2-3 days. Although my friend the EPA "dirt speci@list" (not her official job title, just what she calls herself), has told us that it's actually only 24 hours, and pehaps even a little less.

But these food and pharmaceutical fables have an ever expanding life of their own, so I guess the topic has now expanded to glyophosphates.

As to the question of why this GMO scare has taken hold in so many 1st world countries, I can only say...beats me.

Boreas 04-05-2015 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265932)
Silly me...I thought we were talking about genetically engineered corn, not Roundup.

We're talking about approval processes.

And I'm trying to keep the snark out of my posts, Ike. You just can't stand it when people disagree with you, can you? You might work on that a bit.

bobabode 04-05-2015 01:03 PM

I thought that the reason Monsanto modified the genetic structure was to make it resistant to Round Up? :confused:

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 265933)
We're talking about approval processes.

And I'm trying to keep the snark out of my posts, Ike. You just can't stand it when people disagree with you, can you? You might work on that a bit.

Look john...my last communication to you suggested we both just leave each other alone and I never received the courtesy of a reply. So go rag at somebody else.

And WTF is this obsession you have with me and the tone of my posts anyway? People are outright flaming each other every day all over the place in this fucking joint and you're pissing and moaning about my "...silly me"? Maybe it would make things better if I just broke down and asked you out on a date.

Boreas 04-05-2015 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265962)
Look john...my last communication to you suggested we both just leave each other alone and I never received the courtesy of a reply. So go rag at somebody else.

No, you got a reply. I said that you were free to "expect" anything you like.

I feel no obligation to refrain from replying to your posts and, as long as I do so civilly, I see no justifiable reason for you to complain or, for that matter, respond in a rude manner.

Do I care? Not a bit. Respond to me as you like but just don't try to justify it.

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 265963)
No, you got a reply. I said that you were free to "expect" anything you like.

I feel no obligation to refrain from replying to your posts and, as long as I do so civilly, I see no justifiable reason for you to complain or, for that matter, respond in a rude manner.

Do I care? Not a bit. Respond to me as you like but just don't try to justify it.

You trying to take some sort of behavioral high ground is the funniest fucking thing I've seen on this forum in a long time.

Boreas 04-05-2015 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265973)
You trying to take some sort of behavioral high ground is the funniest fucking thing I've seen on this forum in a long time.

Just picking my battles.

Gut yontiv, schmendrick.

Ike Bana 04-05-2015 05:12 PM

Happy resurrection day clem.

Boreas 04-05-2015 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265977)
Happy resurrection day clem.

Thank you.

"Clem" is short for Clement which means "peaceful" and was the name of several popes.

That's me all over!

djv8ga 04-05-2015 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode (Post 265942)
I thought that the reason Monsanto modified the genetic structure was to make it resistant to Round Up? :confused:

You're correct. With GMOs, Glyphosate can be sprayed over the whole field instead of spot spraying weeds. This is why a farm that grew GMO corn and/or soybean must sit idle for a minimum of 3 years before attempting to grow non-GMO crops. This is a big problem out here because of low precipitation & slow draining (clay) soil.

djv8ga 04-05-2015 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265932)
As to the question of why this GMO scare has taken hold in so many 1st world countries, I can only say...beats me.

Don't forget hybridization can take place. Not only can this ruin somebody else's seed, this type of farming destroys the soil & causes desertification. China is fighting their spreading deserts big time. Also, hybrid seed would be illegal to grow because of patents owned by Monsanto.

Ike Bana 04-06-2015 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boreas (Post 265978)
Thank you.

"Clem" is short for Clement which means "peaceful" and was the name of several popes.

That's me all over!

No tit for tat from me. Flaccid attempts at trying to assume the behavioral high ground is also you all over. Well...OK except for that, then.

Boreas 04-06-2015 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 266010)
No tit for tat from me. Flaccid attempts at trying to assume the behavioral high ground is also you all over. Well...OK except for that, then.

That was just tit. There's no tat in my post at all. You can't resist, can you?

Ike Bana 04-06-2015 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 265980)
Don't forget hybridization can take place. Not only can this ruin somebody else's seed, this type of farming destroys the soil & causes desertification. China is fighting their spreading deserts big time. Also, hybrid seed would be illegal to grow because of patents owned by Monsanto.

If we want to avoid starvation leading to pandemic we are probably going to need all the GMO's we can get. Then again, maybe we don't want to avoid that. History supports that a good mass extinction every now and then serves the planet really well. Seems to me that us humans have put ourselves right near the front of the line for the next one.

Boreas 04-06-2015 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 266022)
If we want to avoid starvation leading to pandemic we are probably going to need all the GMO's we can get.

The Gospel According to Monsanto!

It's a myth, Ike.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...-feeding-world

Boreas 04-06-2015 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ike Bana (Post 265932)
Silly me...I thought we were talking about genetically engineered corn, not Roundup. Which has an officially identified half life of 2-3 days. Although my friend the EPA "dirt speci@list" (not her official job title, just what she calls herself), has told us that it's actually only 24 hours, and pehaps even a little less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by djv8ga (Post 265979)
You're correct. With GMOs, Glyphosate can be sprayed over the whole field instead of spot spraying weeds. This is why a farm that grew GMO corn and/or soybean must sit idle for a minimum of 3 years before attempting to grow non-GMO crops.

These two statement would seem to be contradictory.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.