Posted on 05/31/2013 4:30:47 PM PDT by kronos77
You would have to label everything other than stuff grown from heirloom seeds that no one would ever buy or eat.
Obviously, what is being objected to is DISCRIMINATORY labeling requirements, especially when it is politically motivated by big-government statists.
Who knew that FR was populated by nanny state dim bulbs?
Are we still allowed to have a garden?
Low information consumers = low information voters = Obama in office. As far am GM foods, most Americans don't have a clue. HUMANS are genetically modified organisms - just modified the old fashioned, slow way - by breeding.
Ever heard of a mule?
Show me where - ANYWHERE - in this article that alleges GMOs are responsible for declining bee populations.
As far as I know the blame is put on specific pesticides, echoes of Rachel Carson and her BS about DDT and bird populations. In this case, I really don't know about the pesticides in question, but I do know that pesticides are not GMOs.
I seriously doubt increased yield was the motivation behind it, profit derived from controlling supply was. Profit is not bad but some means of acquiring it are. The idea of being forced to turn to a multinational for seed every growing season makes me very uncomfortable, and I suspect there will be unintended consequences in the wild. Any cross-pollination with non-GM plants could lead to a die-off of those plants. Has there been sufficient field testing to guarantee against that? I suspect not.
Yes, the restrictive covenants imposed in the marketing of GM seeds is problematic, but frankly, it’s not new. This has been the case ever since the introduction of hybrid seeds decades ago.
To the contrary, the issues raised in this article are neo-luddite in nature.
At least Putin is looking out after your garden
*****************************************************
LOL. Good one. Believe me it needs all the help I can get!
Too bad the geniuses at Monstanto can’t create RoundUp-Ready Bees. Bye, bye, world.
On Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), her husband doing research for Monsanto, etc.
Lose your property for growing food? Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2209412/posts
We don’t need Frankenstein plants modified in laboratories with genes from radically different organisms. We don’t need to have such plants pollinating proven, hardy food plants on neighboring properties and potentially weakening them. Too many people in big, government-linked businesses are trying to get too much without working for it. More natural and time-tested methods can also get much higher yields on fewer acres than big agriculture (soil management).
Monsanto makes the seeds OK.
Who makes the pesticides? Is that Monsanto too?
The pesticides kill bees. OK
But what's wrong with the seeds?
Believe me..... it is a real problem! And the proof is there, if you were a beekeeper you would see it.
Here is a presentation given several years ago by our friend Jamie Ellis, PhD, University of Florida, Department of Entomology and Nematology, Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory.
Here is a video speaking about toxicity of neonicotinoids and their research on it
I could show you many more reports, but the telling moment was when I watched a film from Dr Keith Delaplane's lab at Univ of GA (I believe it was) where they exposed a honeybee to neonicotinoid pesticide dose, like they encounter in a field of corn for instance, and the bee exhibited total confusion which in the wild would mean she could not find her way back to the hive.
John Valentine, you need to understand the difference between breeding for select attributes (a natural process) and genetic modification where gene splicing is done in a lab. I won't attempt to educate you on that.... but if you really want the truth you can find it for yourself.
Lastly, to answer eCSMaster's questioning of how are the Montsanto "seeds" themselves harmful..... the pesticide is in the seed and thus when the plant sprouts and grows, the pesticide is not just sitting on top of the plant, but is inside and systemic..... meaning when the honeybee extracts the nectar, she gets pesticide in the nectar. You might also be interested to know that since the pesticide is in the nectar, then you get the pesticide in the honey you eat. Do you not think that is harmful to you?????!!!!!
Thank you to kronos77 for posting this..... and to John Valentine, and cunning_fish ..... I am going to be blunt: get your heads out of the sand, my FRiends. :)
No need for education; I already understand fully every element of this. Where we would disagree is where you call the old fashioned way a "natural" process and gene splicing - I suppose - "unnatural". I see BOTH of these as unnatural processes guided by human intelligence.
Ever heard of a daddy mule? No, because they don’t procreate thus ending your argument.
You: “Who knew animal husbandry was to create a non-breeding stock.”
Me: “Ever heard of a mule?”
You: “Ever heard of a daddy mule? No, because they don’t procreate thus ending your argument.”
Me: “Ever heard of a non-sequitur?”
Lol, too funny, coming from someone that thinks changing the DNA of a plant by implanting genes from and entirely different species (GMO) is the same as cross pollinating in the same species (hybrid).
The Obama administration has been pushing the construction of coal terminals in the Pacific Northwest, mainly in Whatcom County, WA. The outrage among Obama supporters is mainly focused on the dirty coal trains, but the developers of the Gateway Pacific Terminal (SSA/Goldman Sachs) told a group of supporters that coal was just the excuse to get the terminal built (with lots of funding help from the federal government).
SSA invited politicians and farm owners from all over the Northwest to what they termed a “Grain Growers Conference” at the local Indian casino, where they were told that shipping grain was the real purpose of the so-called coal terminal. Furthermore, the growers were told that the developers could get all restrictions on growing crops removed if the growers were willing to sign an agreement to ship all the grain and soy beans to China via the Gateway Pacific Terminal. There was even a trade representative there from China, who said that China was not interested in the sub-bituminous coal, but that China would buy all the grain and soy beans that the farmers could produce.
The problem with identifying grain as the main cargo to be shipped is that the farmers said that it would take five years to get their farms back to producing and the terminal developers need a current cargo to get the permits through, not a hypothetical cargo.
Of course, the grain to be shipped is all GMO, and the pressure to get this terminal built is coming straight from the White House with the help of some powerful Democrat allies and Republican coal supporters (even though sub-bituminous coal is not really considered coal by the federal government).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.