Posted on 02/01/2011 7:11:47 PM PST by Razzz42
Under these programs, the USDA uses chemical poisons to murder literally millions of birds each year, including an occasional endangered species animal by accident. This is all part of the USDA's insane program of death to protect the financial interests of conventional agriculture giants.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalnews.com ...
The best information I have found to date is here:
this gives you a database of cancer rates per 100,000 person years, from 1950 - 1994. This data does NOT support the contention that cancer rates have moved from 1 in 5 to 1 in 2 since 1950. Indeed, it indicates a gradually increasing rate over time, probably tracking the increase in longevity (haven’t confirmed that suspicion yet).
I am yet more convinced that attributing an increase in cancer risk to GE crops is malicious at worst, and deliberate ignorance of facts at best.
Since the original researcher has admitted that his theory was made up out of whole cloth (lies), I am not convinced that it does warrant further study.
For the same reason why Farmers are doing business with Monsanto, profit!
Nothing wrong with that!
Higher yields, less waste etc.
My quibble is not with GE or GMO per se, my quibble is that farmers who have different business models, say wholly organic, are under the shadow of Monsanto’s products.
If Monsanto can effectively quarantine their stuff, no complaints from me, however I doubt they can as nature just does not work like that, things are messy out in the field(s) and the process was never really designed to include/exclude wholly created organisms.
Thanks, great resource to have. I have it bookmarked.
I’m alway hearing about how the whole country is dying of cancer, it’s good to have something like this.
If Monsanto can effectively quarantine their stuff,
That's been true down through the ages, it's how crossbred crops came to be in the first place.
It's darn near impossible to quarantine anything related to growing crops, whether its 2-4-D type herbicides which have been around since at least WWII, and can, under certain conditions, drift over a mile, down a ditch and do serious damage to someone elses soybean crop, or the more modern herbicides and insecticides which have similar problems.
Should the modern farmer be held captive by his neighbors desire not to use chemicals?
I don't get it, WHO is stopping you from buying whatever type food you want, organic, or inorganic?
I have a lot of friends and relatives still in the farming business. Some specialize in organic, and if you have a big pocketbook, you can buy from them.
If you are just an ordinary joe smoe with an average income you're limited to how organic you can buy, but that's not someone else’s fault.
The advent of GM crops helped continue the downward slide of grocery prices. GN also paved the way for the expansion of organic crops, as the economic pressure to use every acre just to feed everyone suddenly was reduced, and farmers could begin to specialize in niche crops.
People who want to only eat organic often don’t how dependant they are on GM crops for their organic foods.
Yes, if they cannot use their product and keep their pollution on their land (pollution in the sense that it is a byproduct of the process they are using) then they should not use it.
When a painter paints a home with a portable sprayed, if the neighbor’s home is speckled with paint, it is not that homeowners’s issue, it is the painters problem to take responsiblity for.
Do you seriously believe Americans would put up with the 20 or 30% reduction in food supply that would result if we elimate GM crops?
That elimates every step in the crop production, from tillage, to harvest. It also elimates NOT doing anything with the land. It also elimates every step in animal production.
I pointed out upthread that I think you don't even know a farmer, now I'll bet you haven't even been on a farm.
Sure. Tie in a GMO ban with a ban on High Fructose Corn Syrup. And lift the tariffs and price supports on sugar.
People prefer sugar in their soda to HFCS.
Ban GMO corn, presumably less corn. Ban the use of corn in soda, less need for the corn.
That extra 20% of GMO corn is going to soda. When it can’t go into soda, there’s extra corn floating around out there.
And you can get rid of that extra 20% by getting rid of GMO.
56 pounds of corn in a bushel. Corn is now $6.75 a bushel.
6.75 divided by 56 is 12 cents a pound.
Fritos in a bag cost $3.00 a pound, or more. $0.12 of $3.00 is the price of the corn. Somehow, I think we’ll make it.
Well, I think you’re wrong, and since at least 1950 the politicians think you’re wrong.
HOWEVER
I know that the farmers would be happy if you could convince the politicians to end the “Cheap Food for Consumers” government program, most often referred to as “The Farm Subsidies Program”.
If the average American will stand still for a severe reduction in feedstuffs and food supply, they certainly will stand still for an end to all of those government programs.
Let me know what I can do to help. Serious.
Perhaps you should also investigate who funded the journalist who wrote the piece. If you truly care about this subject, I think you will find it interesting.....
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
Nice hit piece on Deer, by someone with reason to discredit him. The piece seemed to concentrate on who paid him for writing about the issue, and accused him of frightening the 12 families.
I see this as a typical misdirection ploy, when you cannot argue the message, you attack the messenger.
Do you have any followup studies on the connection between autism and vaccination that support the initial theory? I love to see scientific, peer reviewed studies that confirm the original theory. TX
Nice hit piece on Deer, by someone with reason to discredit him. The piece seemed to concentrate on who paid him for writing about the issue, and accused him of frightening the 12 families.
I see this as a typical misdirection ploy, when you cannot argue the message, you attack the messenger.
Do you have any followup studies on the connection between autism and vaccination that support the initial theory? I love to see scientific, peer reviewed studies that confirm the original theory. TX
I have actually had contact with Mr. Deer via email. I told him if he wished to prove he was not in bed with Big Pharma, he should investigate statin cholesterol drugs and expose those companies, who are greatly deceiving the public.
High Cholesterol treatment is a scam worth billions. It is also the cause of a myriad of additional health problems (resulting in further costs, both monetary and physical). The Jupiter Study, frequently quoted as proof of the efficicacy of statins, was funded by Astra Zeneca, the company who makes Crestor. Many of the paid researchers had connections to related products as you can see in this article...
http://ethicalnag.org/2010/07/19/jupiter-results-questioned/
Here was Mr Deer's response to my email ....
“Thanks for your email. I always wanted to look at this subject: if only because Lipitor was (maybe is) the top-selling drug. But I could never find a way in. The surface of the whole thing seemed so smooth. I will look out for that book. The other difficulty would be coming up with something genuinely new, and if someone has written a book on it, there may be no way to break anything open that isn't already in print.
But your reminder is a good one. Thanks.
Brian”
Sooo, it appears that a drug that is prescribed to upwards of 30 million people, costing taxpayers and patients billions of dollars, one that is only beneficial for a small fraction of people ...this does not seem to interest him as much as the autism-vaccine issue.....even though Dr. Wakefield's research merely concluded that FURTHER RESEARCH WAS WARRANTED to rule out the autism- vaccination connection issue.
Strange don't you think?
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.