Argentina's Soaring Birth Defect Rate, Gmo, And Monsanto

[arlean]

Expatinowncountry, I am laughing out loud. Are you not aware that the U.S. Department of Ag is OWNED by Monsanto?

You guys can argue with me all you want but if there is anything that is NOT dependable insofar as statistics, solutions, or much else is concerned, it is the U. S. government! It is the same with the pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical companies own the U. S. medical industry and most of Congress. It is amazing what one can accomplish if one has enough money to throw at it, which this cartel has!

 

[Gringoboy]

Frankly gobsmacked by the report on Al Jazeera and the other one, Killing Fields.
Feel sort of helpless really.

 

[Joe]

In California, the recent Proposition 37 to label GMO foods lost. Monsanto gave huge amounts of money to defeat this Proposition. Their thinking is that if people know a food is GMO derived then they might not buy it. Monsanto feels you do NOT have the right to know if you are participating in their genetic experiments.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Expatinowncountry, I am laughing out loud. Are you not aware that the U.S. Department of Ag is OWNED by Monsanto?

You guys can argue with me all you want but if there is anything that is NOT dependable insofar as statistics, solutions, or much else is concerned, it is the U. S. government! It is the same with the pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical companies own the U. S. medical industry and most of Congress. It is amazing what one can accomplish if one has enough money to throw at it, which this cartel has!

I give up, you are right... GMO does not increase yields and the statistics of the US Department of Agriculture are done by Monsanto with a little help of the Argentine INDEC. Even more, everything you find in internet using Google is true.

 

[sleslie23]

I give up, you are right... GMO does not increase yields and the statistics of the US Department of Agriculture are done by Monsanto with a little help of the Argentine INDEC. Even more, everything you find in internet using Google is true.

Maybe it's better to give up before you read this (it's USDA approved!):

http://ucbiotech.org...ited_States.pdf

Here's a highlight:

"Currently available GE crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid
variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the
herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding culti-
vars.
4
However, by protecting the plant from certain pests, GE crops can
prevent yield losses compared with non-GE hybrids, particularly when pest
infestation is high. This effect is particularly important for Bt crops. For
example, before the commercial introduction of Bt corn in 1996, the Euro-
pean corn borer was only partially controlled using chemical insecticides.
Chemical use was not always profitable, and timely application was diffi-
cult. Many farmers accepted yield losses rather than incur the expense and
uncertainty of chemical control. For those farmers, the use of Bt corn
resulted in yield gains rather than pesticide savings. On the other hand, a
recently introduced Bt corn trait selected for resistance against the corn
rootworm, previously controlled using chemical insecticides, may provide
substantial insecticide savings."

Not sure that preventing yield loss equates to yield gain. This paragraph isn't exactly clear, but I would assume it would highlight that fact *IF* there were (substantial? / statistically relevant?) yield gains.

I agree with your point about Google not necessarily being a great source of information about things like GMO, etc. However, I've yet to see substantial proof that GMO provides actual yield gains. There seems to be a lot of disinformation and blind faith that they do, much of which seems to come directly from particularly unreliable sources like:

http://www.monsanto....ease-yield.aspx

 

[arlean]

Expatinowncountry, of course everything on google isn´t true. You really are right and point well taken! I don´t use Google for my searches (it´s a matter of principal) but Internet research can turn up a LOT of articles and resources that are dependable.

I just say that the evidence about health should be enough right there for us to protect people from the effects of genetically modified food as the first order of business WITHOUT the yields being an issue.

Then we have the fact that they are trying to patent every seed so that farmers cannot save their own seed and they, alone, control the entire food supply. Now THAT is power. In my opinion, too much power.

But combine that with the many reports that the yields are not better long term. There are a lot of issues here, But I hope you don´t give up or be put off by disagreement. Just do some indepth research and then let us know what you come up with. I try to read everything on both sides. Yields are, in my opinion, a minor issue compared to the other two that I consider major. What say YOU?

 

[jantango]

If you want to avoid GMOs and toxic chemicals, here is a link to a news source with the latest in Argentina.

Search

Latest news on GMO food, GMO crops, GMO labelling and genetically modified organisms

gmwatch.org