Discussion:
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies | Mail Online
(too old to reply)
LilAbner
2011-05-20 23:27:57 UTC
Permalink
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-blood-93-unborn-babies.html
Don Klipstein
2011-05-21 00:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
--
- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)
LilAbner
2011-05-21 00:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
Dean Hoffman
2011-05-21 01:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
So what is the right link? I copied this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
LilAbner
2011-05-21 01:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
Dean Hoffman
2011-05-21 01:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwz
LilAbner
2011-05-21 01:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwz
That's the story. I cannot explain why the other link although
abbreviated doesn't work in your reply or the other poster's.
Dean Hoffman
2011-05-21 01:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwz
That's the story. I cannot explain why the other link although
abbreviated doesn't work in your reply or the other poster's.
Try using this site: http://tinyurl.com/

Some people are leery of using a tinyurl like I used above. You can
post the preview link instead. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3by6tnt
LilAbner
2011-05-21 02:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwze
That's the story. I cannot explain why the other link although
abbreviated doesn't work in your reply or the other poster's.
Try using this site: http://tinyurl.com/
Some people are leery of using a tinyurl like I used above. You can post
the preview link instead. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3by6tnt
It is of no great consequence but
I question why the original link has the story. The replies with the
address did not contain the story, yet it is the same edition and other
stories are there, even though the title is the same.
An original link NOW does not have the story.
It would appear someone got it pulled. I have heard of this happening in
Britain before but really haven't looked for it.
Billy
2011-05-21 06:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwz
That's the story. I cannot explain why the other link although
abbreviated doesn't work in your reply or the other poster's.
Try using this site: http://tinyurl.com/
Some people are leery of using a tinyurl like I used above. You can
post the preview link instead. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3by6tnt
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.

But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://theuptake.org/2011/03/05/michael-moore-the-big-lie-wisconsin-is-broke/>
LilAbner
2011-05-21 06:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Klipstein
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
Post by LilAbner
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
That's not the same link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1388888/GM-food-toxins-
Post by LilAbner
blood-93-unborn-babies.html
directly from your post.
I have no idea. I open my link in my post and the link in yours has
nothing about it.
How about this? http://tinyurl.com/3j3yqwz
That's the story. I cannot explain why the other link although
abbreviated doesn't work in your reply or the other poster's.
Try using this site: http://tinyurl.com/
Some people are leery of using a tinyurl like I used above. You can
post the preview link instead. http://preview.tinyurl.com/3by6tnt
The toxins have nothing to do with the food being GM. They are
pesticides added to GM food that was used as livestock feed according
to this link.
This statement is behind the curve. Who eats beef. Soybeans by
Monsanto etc has GM systmeic poisons in them.
Who eats beef, chicken, pork?
Post by Don Klipstein
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
Larry
2011-05-23 20:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.

This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.

http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm

Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
unknown
2011-05-23 21:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.
This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.
http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm
Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
I'm not a scientist so I go by what I read or am told or maybe half, of it.
They are systemic poisons, meaning the plant produces them, are being
bread into plants are nasties. It is nothing sprayed, on them like bugs
or viruses.
The idea is to boost production and cut costs....and not kill anyone.
They are showing up in children and that is not good or are they lying???
A little poison in your beans won't kill you. A little poison, in your
corn won't kill you? A little poison in the hamburger, today, chicken
tomorrow, rice...... All of a sudden there is a build up, of a number,
of different or maybe the same poisons? A little bit, of Mercury, in the
Tuna won't kill you today. Tuna everyday will be toxic before too long
and you will lose the tissues between your sinuses, brain and so on.
The tale, or wishful thinking? that the poisons will be eliminated when
the beef etc are butchered obviously isn't the case.
If this is wrong headed then let's hear it.
Larry
2011-05-24 00:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.
This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.
http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm
Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
I'm not a scientist so I go by what I read or am told or maybe half, of it.
They are systemic poisons, meaning the plant produces them, are being
bread into plants are nasties. It is nothing sprayed, on them like bugs
or viruses.
Don't get sidetracked by the GMO red herring. The place
you ingest BT toxin is in fresh and processed
vegetables, which are not GM, but are treated with BT
insecticide to kill caterpillar pests like cutworms.
They also spray cities to control gypsy moth
caterpillars on trees, which are a problem nationwide.
You don't have to eat to get the stuff inside you, all
you have to do is breathe. Fortunately, it is not toxic
to anything that doesn't breath through spiracles.
Post by unknown
The idea is to boost production and cut costs....and not kill anyone.
They are showing up in children and that is not good or are they lying???
Yes, they are probably lying. They are just wishing it
is not good for them to show up in children. They really
know nothing about it, and are just trying to scare
people so they can get money out of them.
Post by unknown
A little poison in your beans won't kill you. A little poison, in your
corn won't kill you? A little poison in the hamburger, today, chicken
tomorrow, rice...... All of a sudden there is a build up, of a number,
of different or maybe the same poisons? A little bit, of Mercury, in the
Tuna won't kill you today. Tuna everyday will be toxic before too long
and you will lose the tissues between your sinuses, brain and so on.
The tale, or wishful thinking? that the poisons will be eliminated when
the beef etc are butchered obviously isn't the case.
If this is wrong headed then let's hear it.
Your assumptions are so off the wall it's hard to know
where to start. Diatomaceous earth kills fleas. It kills
fleas by abrading their carapace so they dehydrate and
die. Does that mean diatomaceous earth is poisonous? Are
you going to start ranting about the dangers of dirt?
Food grows in dirt, you know.

Bt is a wonderful, non-toxic way of keeping insects out
of our crops. The alternative is multiple spraying with
poisons that ARE toxic. Bt is no more toxic than dirt.
Other insecticides will kill you where you stand, triple
your chance of getting cancer, and kill every insect
they come into contact with.
Billy
2011-05-23 22:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.
This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.
http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm
Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
<http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf>
Does Bacillus thuringiensis cause reproductive or birth defects?

Animals
The Us Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only requires studies on
reproductive or developmental effects for microbial pesticides that show
significant adverse health effects in disease and toxicity studies. Due
to the lack of significant disease and toxicity in studies, additional
studies are not required for B.t.

Data is not available from animal studies evaluating the reproductive or
developmental effects of B.t.

Humans
Data is not available from work-related exposures, accidental
poisonings, or other human studies regarding the reproductive and
developmental toxicity of B.t.
-----

You MAY be right, but, again, we are the guinea pigs here. There are no
feeding studies, and embryos, and young children are usually the most
sensitive to environmental toxins, because they are still undergoing
tissue differentiation and development.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Larry
2011-05-24 00:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.
This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.
http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm
Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
<http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf>
Does Bacillus thuringiensis cause reproductive or birth defects?
I think you answered your own question. Bt in pregnant
women and children has been identified and does not
cause problems.
Post by Billy
Animals
The Us Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only requires studies on
reproductive or developmental effects for microbial pesticides that show
significant adverse health effects in disease and toxicity studies. Due
to the lack of significant disease and toxicity in studies, additional
studies are not required for B.t.
Data is not available from animal studies evaluating the reproductive or
developmental effects of B.t.
That's not exactly true. One study showed that women who
ate Bt for two years didn't gain as much weight as the
control group. There may be a safe diet pill there.
Post by Billy
Humans
Data is not available from work-related exposures, accidental
poisonings, or other human studies regarding the reproductive and
developmental toxicity of B.t.
Once again, not exactly true. Work-related exposures
have been well documented. There haven't been any
accidental poisonings because Bt is not poisonous, but
one guy got it in his eye and got an eye ulcer, which
healed with treatment. That is the active Bt culture,
which has little to do with the GM gene in corn or
potatoes.

The anti-GM food organizations are so rigid they can be
pretty irrational. A few years ago, they tried to ban GM
potatoes in Britain. They fed hogs GM potato skins, and
ended up with some pretty sick hogs. Some of them died.
They didn't bother to find out that potato skins have
always been poisonous. They are members of the
nightshade family, and contain solanin. A diet of
potato skins will make anybody sick.
Post by Billy
You MAY be right, but, again, we are the guinea pigs
here. There are no
Post by Billy
feeding studies, and embryos, and young children are usually the most
sensitive to environmental toxins, because they are still undergoing
tissue differentiation and development.
I'm much more concerned with chemicals that we KNOW
cause cancer, birth defects and organ toxicity, which
are in your food and water. I'm concerned enough that I
refuse to eath food imported from countries that don't
have stringent monitoring of agricultural chemical use.
GM foods are at least non-toxic and inherently safe.
Billy
2011-05-24 04:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
But does that mean that Monsanto knows better than "Mother Nature'?
No, but it means Monsanto knows better than Dow
Chemical.
This just goes to show that even scientists can be
morons. Bacillus Thuringiensis is a commonly deployed
herbicide for caterpillar control. It is non-toxic to
anything but the target insects, so is sprayed over
urban areas. It is also applied to common vegetable
crops, and is marketed without tolerance requirements.
http://homeharvest.com/bt.htm
Not only that, but BT occurs naturally in all
environments. You have been breathing and eating the
stuff since you were born. Trying to blame GMO crops for
BT is like blaming the TVA for water.
<http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf>
Does Bacillus thuringiensis cause reproductive or birth defects?
I think you answered your own question. Bt in pregnant
women and children has been identified and does not
cause problems.
Post by Billy
Animals
The Us Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only requires studies on
reproductive or developmental effects for microbial pesticides that show
significant adverse health effects in disease and toxicity studies. Due
to the lack of significant disease and toxicity in studies, additional
studies are not required for B.t.
Data is not available from animal studies evaluating the reproductive or
developmental effects of B.t.
That's not exactly true. One study showed that women who
ate Bt for two years didn't gain as much weight as the
control group. There may be a safe diet pill there.
Post by Billy
Humans
Data is not available from work-related exposures, accidental
poisonings, or other human studies regarding the reproductive and
developmental toxicity of B.t.
Once again, not exactly true. Work-related exposures
have been well documented. There haven't been any
accidental poisonings because Bt is not poisonous, but
one guy got it in his eye and got an eye ulcer, which
healed with treatment. That is the active Bt culture,
which has little to do with the GM gene in corn or
potatoes.
The anti-GM food organizations are so rigid they can be
pretty irrational. A few years ago, they tried to ban GM
potatoes in Britain. They fed hogs GM potato skins, and
ended up with some pretty sick hogs. Some of them died.
They didn't bother to find out that potato skins have
always been poisonous. They are members of the
nightshade family, and contain solanin. A diet of
potato skins will make anybody sick.
Post by Billy
You MAY be right, but, again, we are the guinea pigs
here. There are no
Post by Billy
feeding studies, and embryos, and young children are usually the most
sensitive to environmental toxins, because they are still undergoing
tissue differentiation and development.
I'm much more concerned with chemicals that we KNOW
cause cancer, birth defects and organ toxicity, which
are in your food and water. I'm concerned enough that I
refuse to eath food imported from countries that don't
have stringent monitoring of agricultural chemical use.
GM foods are at least non-toxic and inherently safe.
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support anything that you've
written. I've cited sources to show that other people have concerns
about GMOs. It's just not me. Doctors, professors, journalist have
questions about GMOs that haven't been answered. So if you have anything
else to say, without citation, I'm just going to presume that you are
pulling it out of your backside.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Larry
2011-05-24 13:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted. Read for
comprehension, Billy. I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.

I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.

Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.

If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
Dean Hoffman
2011-05-24 16:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted. Read for
comprehension, Billy. I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.
I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.
Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
That's gonna cost a pretty penny. Some farm ground here in south
central/east Nebraska went for $8050. The farmers traded an old pivot
for a new one so add maybe $90,000 for that.
I haven't heard anything lately about the more expensive ground back
east.
Larry
2011-05-25 02:54:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <irgna3$27h$***@speranza.aioe.org>, dh0496
@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com says...
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Larry
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get
to
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Larry
work.
That's gonna cost a pretty penny. Some farm ground here in south
central/east Nebraska went for $8050. The farmers traded an old pivot
for a new one so add maybe $90,000 for that.
I haven't heard anything lately about the more expensive ground back
east.
The big money is speculating on farm ground. It remains
to be seen how that pays off. If I were speculating on
the success of engineered drought resistant crops, the
shortgrass prairie might be a good place to buy land.

Here in Oregon, the price of farm land is dictated by
the fact that there just isn't any for sale. Land
doesn't sell until the farmer dies, and sometimes not
even then. My mother suggests we hold on to the
irrigated farm for the rent. Unfortunately, tenants
don't take care of the land. When my dad was farming it,
the soil was a living thing, but 15 years of silage have
turned it into dead clay, with attendant declining
yields. The first years the tenant got 15' tall corn
crops, now he's lucky to get 10' tall corn. It's not
worth what it could be because it would take 10 years of
conservation farming to get the soil back in shape.

I suspect there are some speculators out there who are
going home without their shorts. Maybe we will look for
one if we decide to sell.
Billy
2011-05-25 16:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com says...
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Larry
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get
to
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Larry
work.
That's gonna cost a pretty penny. Some farm ground here in south
central/east Nebraska went for $8050. The farmers traded an old pivot
for a new one so add maybe $90,000 for that.
I haven't heard anything lately about the more expensive ground back
east.
The big money is speculating on farm ground. It remains
to be seen how that pays off. If I were speculating on
the success of engineered drought resistant crops, the
shortgrass prairie might be a good place to buy land.
Here in Oregon, the price of farm land is dictated by
the fact that there just isn't any for sale. Land
doesn't sell until the farmer dies, and sometimes not
even then. My mother suggests we hold on to the
irrigated farm for the rent. Unfortunately, tenants
don't take care of the land. When my dad was farming it,
the soil was a living thing, but 15 years of silage have
turned it into dead clay, with attendant declining
yields. The first years the tenant got 15' tall corn
crops, now he's lucky to get 10' tall corn. It's not
worth what it could be because it would take 10 years of
conservation farming to get the soil back in shape.
I suspect there are some speculators out there who are
going home without their shorts. Maybe we will look for
one if we decide to sell.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p15s01-wmgn.html
from the April 21, 2008 edition -
Can the earth provide enough food for 9 billion people?
That's how many are expected to inhabit the world by 2050. Experts worry
over looming food shortages.

<http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/05/20115723149852120.
html>
Glencore: Profiteering from hunger and chaos
The world's largest commodities trader is issuing a stock sale, and
critics say the firm causes spikes in food prices.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/24/agriculture-next-big-investm
ent>
Is agriculture the next big investment thing?
As the world's population expands, China switches from rice to meat, and
biofuel growth looks set to rocket, City experts think agriculture is
the best place to make money in the next decade

Estimates suggest there will be 50m new mouths to feed every year. Hedge
funds, with billions of pounds in assets, are recklessly gambling on
food prices, with speculators driving massive price volatility that
threatens the most vulnerable people on the planet.
---

So it's not just "Global Warming" that is driving up food costs, greed
is also part of the problem. However as one "record" meteorological
event after another affects agriculture, it is obvious that the
dilly-dallying of world political leaders on addressing greenhouse
gasses is exacerbating the problem. Record heat in 2010 caused Russia to
withhold it's wheat crop from world markets. Heat and drought prompted
Argentina to place export limits on grain. Flooding in Australia, by
some accounts covering land roughly the size of France and Germany
combined, means that Australia's wheat growers could face losing 90% of
their produce. Drought in China reduces winter wheat crop. It seems that
the hits just keep on commin'. Just as Donald Trump made money from
Hurricane Katrina, speculators find ways of profiting from disasters,
and it appears that there will be a lot of grist for their mills to grind



<http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude>
The atmosphere has already warmed up a full degree in the last several
decades and is on course to warm up another two degrees by 2100. Fact,
half the tropical forests in the world, the lungs of our ecosystem, are
gone. By 2030, at the present rate of extraction or so-called harvest,
only 10% will be left standing. 90% of the big fish in the sea are gone,
victim to wanton predatory fishing practice. Says a prominent scientist
studying their demise, there is no blue frontier left. Half the world's
wetlands, the kidneys of our ecosystem, have been destroyed in the 20th
century. Species extinction is taking place at a rate 1,000 times
greater than before humans existed. According to a Smithsonian
scientist, we are headed toward of biodiversity deficit in which species
and ecosystems will be destroyed at a rate faster than nature can
replace them with new ones. Fact, we are polluting our lakes, rivers and
streams to death. Every day, two million tons of sewage and industrial
agricultural waste are discharged into the world's water. That's the
equivalent of the entire human population of 6.8 billion people. The
amount of waste water produced annually is about six times more water
than exists in all the rivers of the world. We are minding our ground
water faster than we can replenish it, sucking it to grow water guzzling
chemical-fed crops in deserts or to water thirsty cities who dump an
astounding 700 trillion liters of land-based water into oceans every
year as waste.


<http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/8/raj_patel_mozambiques_food_riots_ar
e>
Raj Patel: Mozambique's Food Riots Are the True Face of Global Warming


Have a good day.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Billy
2011-05-24 18:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted. Read for
comprehension, Billy.
Great, your only source is one that I provided?
Stop cherry picking, and read for context.
Post by Billy
I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.
Well, I haven't taken any Ag classes except for viticulture, but I've
had organic chemistry, botany, and bacteriology, so try me on the short
course.
Post by Billy
I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.
That would put it around the beginning of the obesity, and Type II
diabetes epidemics, wouldn't it, not to mention the increase in Celiac
Disease, and the increasing incidence of Chronic Inflammatory Diseases?
It took some 30 years to PROVE that cigarettes caused cancer, once they
started looking for it.
Post by Billy
Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.
And as we all know, the USDA is there to help farmers, even corporate
farmers, sell their crops.
Post by Billy
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
If I was even 35, I would.
Good bye.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Billy
2011-05-24 18:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted.
I gave it to you, and you couldn't even include it in your post??

Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support anything that you've
written. I've cited sources to show that other people have concerns
about GMOs. It's just not me. Doctors, professors, journalist have
questions about GMOs that haven't been answered. So if you have anything
else to say, without citation, I'm just going to presume that you are
pulling it out of your backside.

It's looking like a better presumption all the time.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.


RT
2011-05-26 18:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted. Read for
comprehension, Billy. I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.
I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.
Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
You can say that again. It is a phenomenon akind to armchair
quarterbacking. Looks easy, but I have never thrown a football while
men the size of mountains try to stop me at any cost. It is my
experience that the margins are very thin, and the farmers still in
business very agressive about learning all they can to produce and
maintain and improve the land.
Billy
2011-05-27 18:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted.
To what section are you referring?
Post by Larry
Read for
Post by Billy
comprehension, Billy. I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.
I doubt you could find your butt with both hands, butt as I said, I'm
ready for your instruction.
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.
So you say, but that would put the introduction of GM food around the
beginning of the obesity, and Type II diabetes epidemics, and the
increase in Celiac Disease, and the increasing incidence of Chronic
Inflammatory Diseases?

It took some 30 years to PROVE that cigarettes caused cancer, once they
started looking for it. We are still the guinea pigs in the GMO
experiment.

And what do these Franken Foods have to offer? A Canada based biotech
company is seeking approval to be able to sell a genetically modified
apple in the U.S. designed to take much longer to turn brown once sliced.
"Arctic," as its manufacturer, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, has named
the apple, uses technology that turns off the enzyme responsible for
browning during oxidation.

The decomposition won't stop with this technology; you just won't be
able to see it.
<http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/freak-gmo-apples-eager-to-ta
ke-a-bite-out-of-us-market.html>
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
You can say that again. It is a phenomenon akind to armchair
quarterbacking. Looks easy, but I have never thrown a football while
men the size of mountains try to stop me at any cost. It is my
experience that the margins are very thin, and the farmers still in
business very agressive about learning all they can to produce and
maintain and improve the land.
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've written. The mere fact that the agricultural
population is down to 1% of the population from 75% 110 years ago would
indicate problems.

The history of agriculture in the United States during the
twentieth-century involved a transition from a nation of independent
farmers and craft workers to a nation of landless workers and urban
consumers dependent on increasingly transnational corporate agribusiness
producers, processors, and distributors of food. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Census, in 1900, over one out of every three Americans was
part of the farm-based population (29.8 million out of a total
population of 76.2 million). By 1940, there were still 30.5 million
individuals in the farm-based population out of a total population of
132.1 million or 23.1 percent. Rapid change followed after mid-century,
and by 1970 only 9.7 million persons remained categorized as farm-based
or roughly 5 percent of the total population of 203.3 million. The
downward trend has continued, and in 1990 only 4.5 million persons were
categorized as farm-based, or less than 2 percent of a total population
of 248.7 million.

The high yields of the new select miracle crops were only possible under
a new regime of chemically-intensive agriculture. For this reason,
critics note that the so-called miracle crops were not so much
high-yield as high-input varieties.

Of course, low-income and subsistence farmers could ill-afford to make
the substantial investments required to pursue this type of agriculture.
Many of the first pesticides developed in the U.S. were derived from
chemical weapons the military developed during World War II. The
technologies and practices of the so-called green revolution led to
accelerated soil erosion and compaction, depletion of soil fertility,
salinization and alkalinization of soils, pollution of surface and
ground waters, loss of traditional farm land to infrastructure
development, displacement of small subsistence-oriented farmers,
destruction of wild life habitat, and loss of agricultural biodiversity.

Then there is the economics of farming.

? 62 percent of flour milling was controlled by ADM, ConAgra,
Cargill, and Cereal Food Processors;
? 76 percent of soybean processing was controlled by ADM, Cargill,
Bunge, and Ag Processors;
? 57 percent of dry corn milling was controlled by Bunge, Illinois
Cereal Mills, ADM, and ConAgra; and
? 74 percent of wet corn milling was controlled by ADM, Cargill,
Tate and Lyle, and CPC.

The concentration of capital in agriculture has been extended through
the process of globalization. This domination of agriculture by a
handful of corporations has meant that local communities everywhere have
increasingly lost the ability to control access, affordability, and
safety of their food supplies. The globalization of food production was
evident in data from the late 1980s when agribusiness giants like
Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto already operated in dozens of countries.
Cargill--perhaps the most global of these firms in 1990--operated in
forty-nine countries including Mexico, where it had six different
operations.

If you don't like the price that you are offered for 5,000 acres of
wheat, who are you going to go to? Who controls agriculture?

What was wrong with agricultural supports before Butz changed them?


I'm a gardener, not a farmer. From growing vast acres of a monoculutre
commodity, I know little from hands on experience, but it is a wonder
how many CSAs are popping up (I count 24 of them in my area alone), and
how many new faces are joining the old familiar ones at the "farmers
market".
<http://www.localharvest.org/csa/>
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Billy
2011-05-28 00:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by RT
Post by Billy
Post by Billy
Ya know, you haven't given one citation to support
anything that you've
Post by Billy
written.
If you had read the citations you gave instead of just
pulling random quotes, you would know that everything I
said was from the OSU source you posted. Read for
comprehension, Billy. I can't give you a whole course in
biology on Usenet.
I also gave the biggest single citation with my first
response: 25 years of GM food with no negative effects.
Since you are such an authority on agriculture, I'm sure
you followed the Roundup-ready sugar beet controversy
this spring. The FOF (Fear of Frankenfood) group sued to
take them off the market, the courts went along, and
then found that there was not enough conventional sugar
beet seed in the world to plant a conventional sugar
beet crop. The fun thing was that the court decision had
nothing to do with the safety of the crop, it was based
on USDA not filling out the right paperwork.
If you think you can do better, buy a farm and get to
work.
You can say that again. It is a phenomenon akind to armchair
quarterbacking. Looks easy, but I have never thrown a football while
men the size of mountains try to stop me at any cost. It is my
experience that the margins are very thin, and the farmers still in
business very agressive about learning all they can to produce and
maintain and improve the land.
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://youtu.be/hYIC0eZYEtI
http://youtu.be/b_vN0--mHug
Larry
2011-05-31 01:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.

Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
Billy
2011-05-31 05:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies

"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."

Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.

Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
k***@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
2011-05-31 23:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."
Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.
Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
Yeah, Larry. It's for the Children!!!
Larry
2011-06-01 13:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
You are an odd little duck, Billy. I actually chased
down the original study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670

You will notice that most of those "GM food toxins" were
actually glyphosate and glyphosate metabolites. While it
is true that bT toxins were detected, they have never
been shown to have any negative effects on anything but
insects, and there is no evidence they came from GM
foods, since Quebec is infested with Gypsy Moth, and the
whole province gets doused in Foray (bT insecticide)
annually. Plus, even on conventional corn crops, bT
insecticides like Dipel or Javelin are preferred
insecticides, since they are non-toxic, species
specific, and don't hurt beneficial insects.

There is no evidence at all for your buddy No GMO's
claim of genetic transfer to intestinal bacteria.
Post by Billy
"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."
I thought the claim was that bT was harmless to humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11067772
Post by Billy
Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.
Would you rather they had to deal with toxic
insecticides like permethrins, chlorpyrifos or
parathion?
Post by Billy
Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
Larry just doesn't suck on any dick that gets flipped in
my face. You seem to be willing to believe any
distortion or fabrication without question.
Billy
2011-06-01 19:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
You are an odd little duck, Billy. I actually chased
down the original study.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670>
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically
modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.
Aris A, Leblanc S.

Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Sherbrooke
Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; Clinical Research Centre of
Sherbrooke University Hospital Centre, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada;
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.

Abstract
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are
engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and
gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the
correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine
exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid
(AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid
(3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec,
Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant
women (NPW) were studied.

**Serum GLYP and GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW.**

Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1 toxin were detected in PW, their fetuses and
NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF
in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in
reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental
toxicities.

Copyright (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

**GLYP and GLUF were detected in non-pregnant women, but not in pregnant
women. Yet, it was found in their fetuses!!! Think about that.
Post by Larry
You will notice that most of those "GM food toxins" were
actually glyphosate and glyphosate metabolites.
The above came from the citation noted.

The statements below are without supporting citations.
Post by Larry
While it
is true that bT toxins were detected, they have never
been shown to have any negative effects on anything but
insects, and there is no evidence they came from GM
foods, since Quebec is infested with Gypsy Moth, and the
whole province gets doused in Foray (bT insecticide)
annually. Plus, even on conventional corn crops, bT
insecticides like Dipel or Javelin are preferred
insecticides, since they are non-toxic, species
specific, and don't hurt beneficial insects.
Does it make any sense to you to use insecticides as a last resort, and
then only when the pest is present? Your suggestion of preemptive
application will lead to, among other things, earlier resistance by
pests.
Post by Larry
There is no evidence at all for your buddy No GMO's
claim of genetic transfer to intestinal bacteria.
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
And no evidence to contradict it either. That wasn't the hypothesis
being tested.
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."
I thought the claim was that bT was harmless to humans.
The first statement by the biotech industry is obviously wrong, since
toxins and metabolites were found in women and fetuses, and then you
expect us to believe the second statement from the same source?
Post by Larry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11067772
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Oct;32(2):156-73.
Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL.
Jellinek, Schwartz and Connolly, Washington, DC, USA.

There are no studies cited in this article. The authors appear to have
been paid for a glowing appraisal of GMO crops, 11 years ago.

Roy Fuchs, aka R.L. Fuchs, Dr Roy L. Fuchs is Monsanto plant scientist
and author of several Monsanto studies offering "substantially
equivalent" safety assurances
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add
ress=389x8137400>
<http://www.labome.org/expert/usa/monsanto/hammond/b-hammond-378917.html>

G. B. Hammond
<http://www.labome.org/expert/usa/monsanto/hammond/b-hammond-378917.html>

F. S. Betz et al.
http://www.monsanto.com.ar/biotecnologia/documentos/publicaciones_tecnica
s_sobre_beneficios.pdf
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.
Would you rather they had to deal with toxic
insecticides like permethrins, chlorpyrifos or
parathion?
No, but did you ever hear of IPM?
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
Larry just doesn't suck on any dick that gets flipped in
my face.
More information than I need to know.
Post by Larry
You seem to be willing to believe any
distortion or fabrication without question.
Why do you say that? Citation for the above assertion, please.
--
- Billy

Mad dog Republicans to the right. Democratic spider webs to the left. True conservatives, and liberals not to be found anywhere in the phantasmagoria
of the American political landscape.

America is not broke. The country is awash in wealth and cash.
It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the
greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks
and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
<http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/10/michael-moore
/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/>
Billy
2011-06-03 17:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
There is no evidence at all for your buddy No GMO's
claim of genetic transfer to intestinal bacteria.
In general, says Dr. Brad Spellberg, a professor of medicine at Los
Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, E.
coli packs a powerful one-two punch for those it infects. It belongs to
a class of bacteria known as gram-negative bugs, which have a remarkable
ability to swap genes with a wide range of other organisms (even GMOs).
Mixing and matching genetic material can lead to dangerous combinations
that allow E. coli to resist antibiotics or cause severe illness and
even death in people.

What's more, E. coli are among the most common organisms in the human
body, blanketing our gut in tremendous numbers, which makes the
emergence of new, potentially harmful strains relatively easy. The thing
about infectious disease that we learned the hard way is that every time
we catch up with something, something else mutates, and changes and
evolves, Spellberg says. It's the nature of the beast.
<http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/03/three-possible-cases-of-e-coli-ill
ness-in-u-s/>
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://youtu.be/hYIC0eZYEtI
http://youtu.be/b_vN0--mHug
Dean Hoffman
2011-06-04 01:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."
Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.
Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
And you were doing so good, too.

What it comes down to, at least for me, is all the false alarms we've
had over the years. Chicken Little stories or the little boy who cried
wolf.
We had home grown eggs when I was a kid. That was common in our
neighborhood. Farm women raised chickens. People ate bunches of eggs.
Then suddenly eggs were bad for people. The researchers eventually
figured out they were wrong. Eggs are ok to eat.
I read an article a couple, three weeks ago. Salt isn't a problem
Post by Billy
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3nuzthm
There was a time when using salt was supposedly a bad thing.
Global warming? Global cooling? Global normal? It's probably a
good thing we can't control that. That would be one more thing for
humans to argue over.
Apparently some are claiming Atrazine is a carcinogen. Not so.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ty2txe
FarmI
2011-06-04 04:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dean Hoffman
Post by Billy
Post by Larry
Post by Billy
<http://vimeo.com/23976975>
Why do you give this any credence? The guy doesn't have
any credentials, and doesn't even give his name. He
mentions studies, but doesn't reference any of them or
say who conducted them or when.
Pass the corn chips, Martha. I have to conduct a study.
GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies
"To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten
by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of
the body, thus causing no harm."
Embryos and children are always the most threatened groups because they
are still developing and creating new types of tissue.
Larry's lack of concern over the risk to children must mean that he
obviously doesn't have children, or at the least, children who are loved.
And you were doing so good, too.
What it comes down to, at least for me, is all the false alarms we've
had over the years. Chicken Little stories or the little boy who cried
wolf.
You probalby wouldn't say that if you farmed in Australia. We have legions
of examples where the experts said things were OK only for them to turn into
a disaster once they found their way onto farming land. Farmers here tend
to be quite cautious - thankfully.
Post by Dean Hoffman
We had home grown eggs when I was a kid. That was common in our
neighborhood. Farm women raised chickens. People ate bunches of eggs.
Then suddenly eggs were bad for people. The researchers eventually
figured out they were wrong. Eggs are ok to eat.
I read an article a couple, three weeks ago. Salt isn't a problem for
most people either.
Those 2 were warnings were based on the best knowledge at the time. As time
goes on and more research takes place, the warnings can be revised. The
same thing could just as be accurately said about the current 'safety' of
GM.

Loading...