|
Post by ltfred on May 1, 2010 18:13:56 GMT -5
I mean, why would Monsanto make a product that would cut into the profits from many of it's other products? Ding, ding, ding! Correct answer! The problem with GM isn't that it's GM. That's cool, so long as it's properly tested and so on (which it is). The problem is that it's owned by Agent Orange Corp (Monsanto). If GM crops were public domain, I, and I think most other greenies, would have no problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on May 1, 2010 19:02:14 GMT -5
Also, you still have to wash organic fruits and veggies simply because of bug shit. You wash the shit and pesticides off at the same time, no problem. Again, GE'd plants, grown using organic GROWING METHODS. I don't have any problem with high-yield GE'd plants. I said as much. However, you forget that pesticide tend to soak into the plants, and in a lot of cases, don't wash off completely. In fact, in the case of apples especially, wax is applied on top of those pesticides before they sell 'em, to make them look shinier. This makes the pesticides even harder to remove. Obviously I'm going to have to wash my fruit anyway. But I don't like the idea of poisonous chemicals anywhere near things that I am going to eat. Especially if I'm going to end up ingesting small amounts of the pesticides--how do I know my body's going to get rid of it as fast as I ingest it? What if it builds up inside me and kills me?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 1, 2010 19:58:14 GMT -5
I'm aware you were talking about organic growing methods, their methods are inefficient. The wax for apples isn't so much about the pesticides either as it is about the average consumer being an idiot. And, no, toxins don't build up inside of you, as a quick example, that's what lysosomes are for. While it is true that pesticides need to be closely monitored, going 100% organic simply won't provide enough food for us and every farm that's organic rather than conventional is lowering the supply of food. And we definitely need food, that's the problem with ethanol as fuel, it uses land for growing food corn and uses it to grow fuel corn. The population is so bloody huge we don't have an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 2, 2010 4:16:30 GMT -5
... their methods are inefficient. How exactly? And why does that mean we need Gengeneered food? OR it was because daminozide is a carcinogen but because of lots of money from alar manufacturers to do PR that the alar scare was just a scare. Similar tactics can be seen casting doubt on other things like climate change and smoking. While there is debate among scientists, it's over how carcinogenic alar is, not if it's carcinogenic. Yes they do. And some stay around. Even the ones that don't still manage to do lots of damage while they are there. And toxins will concentrate as they move up the food chain. I am not sure lysosomes do what you think they do. Are you saying that lysosomes digest toxins? They can probably take some but that's not really what they are for, especially for your entire body. Otherwise why would animals need a liver for? Frankly, most toxin would do their damage before lysosomes even got access to them. Hormone disruption for instance. Even the closest monitoring wouldn't really be able to help with a lot of the problems. For one thing, pesticides still enter the environment and spread. It's simple diffusion. That's why there are whales in the arctic with pesticides in their blood. Another problem and one that often gets forgotten it seems is pesticides eventually lose thier effectiveness the more they are used. Evolution takes over and makes the insects being targeted more resistant. Which requires more pesticides. Which makes the insects more resistant. Monitoring might help us recognize the speeding train that's heading towards us but it won't do anything to stop it. Not saying we cant' ever use any pesticides. But we do need to use much much less then we do. Even just making organic competitive would help. In short we need to consider that the positives do not out weigh the negatives.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 2, 2010 10:54:36 GMT -5
Organic farming is inefficient because it needs more land for an equivalent yield due to more crops being lost. And with lysosomes, I was talking about the acid hydrolases.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on May 2, 2010 11:44:27 GMT -5
Well, I say that if you want organic plants, grow them in your own backyard. Not to keep it away from others, but more so you can have them to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on May 2, 2010 12:58:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 2, 2010 15:06:08 GMT -5
Well, I say that if you want organic plants, grow them in your own backyard. Not to keep it away from others, but more so you can have them to yourself. The problem with that of course is that life spreads. It's kind of it's thing. Which is why monsanto put out preemptive letters to farmers that they would sue if monsanto plants were found on their land. Monsanto knew that the plants from their farms would spread to other farms and so put out these letters to scare farmers so they wouldn't complain about it. Complain and the farmer opens himself up for a law suit (at least that was what Monsanto wanted them to think) Clever, No? The victims become the victimizers. Anyway, keeping engineered plants separate may not be possible.
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 2, 2010 15:14:33 GMT -5
Organic farming is inefficient because it needs more land for an equivalent yield due to more crops being lost. That's not quite as clear cut as you might think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming#Productivity_and_profitabilityYes there are more crops being lost. But the costs are lower and it's better for the soil. Remember when third world countries had a food shortage because of ethanol? It was because food prices went up beyond their ability to pay. And there are still all these negatives with with conventional factory farms. We cant' just look at one or two things, we have to look at the whole picture. If a system takes care of yoru short term needs but causes you more harm in the long term, it's not a good system. again not sure how that relates. Most of the problems associated with body burden are things like hormone disruption and genetic damage.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on May 2, 2010 15:37:09 GMT -5
Here's a thought regarding typical Christ-o-Merican (TM) "logic": They like to say things like earthquakes in Haiti or the volcano in Iceland are God's retribution for.. whatever's bothering them that week (gays, socialism, Obama, etc.). Using their own standards, wouldn't it make sense that these oil spills are God's way of saying "Drill baby, drill" is a stupid idea? Or is that using too much thought (and to contrary to their desires) for them to even consider it?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 2, 2010 16:56:24 GMT -5
Because the hydrolases are a class of enzymes that do a lot for breaking down toxins and metabolic waste. So, if it enters the cell, they're something that can destroy it. In all reality, the pesticide thing is a red herring. Organic farms use pesticides they just use "natural" pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides. Do you know why they use pesticides? Because if they don't, then they won't grow enough bloody crops. I'm certainly not going to support a movement that relies upon the naturalistic fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on May 2, 2010 20:47:00 GMT -5
You know, if Obama came out and said, on live television, "Hey, Sarah Palin, how's that 'Drill baby Drill' thing workin' out for ya?" I bet he would be re-elected approximately three-thousand times.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on May 2, 2010 22:20:32 GMT -5
Because the hydrolases are a class of enzymes that do a lot for breaking down toxins and metabolic waste. So, if it enters the cell, they're something that can destroy it. In all reality, the pesticide thing is a red herring. Organic farms use pesticides they just use "natural" pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides. Do you know why they use pesticides? Because if they don't, then they won't grow enough bloody crops. I'm certainly not going to support a movement that relies upon the naturalistic fallacy. Organic food is basically one of the biggest con jobs pulled since Christianity. I'll take cheap, efficient, bio-engineered food over expensive crap (with fucking ZERO added benefits) any day of the week.
|
|
storymoron
Full Member
Guy-liking, God-believing, liberal-minded freak
Posts: 187
|
Post by storymoron on May 2, 2010 22:40:25 GMT -5
Regarding the Drill Baby Drill attitude: BP has issued numerous press releases saying that they take full responsibility for the spill and will compensate those who are affected by it.
Meanwhile, EnergyTomorrow.com, which put out the "Do You Own an Oil Company?" ads a few years back, has numerous blog posts about the spill, all of them focusing on the clean up. One of their quotes:
"While the risks (of off-shore drilling) are great, the benefits to the American people are incalculable. Oil and natural gas fuel our economy, provide millions of jobs, provide chemicals for medicines and thousands of other consumer products that safeguard the health and well-being of all Americans."
Well, frak that.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on May 2, 2010 22:54:50 GMT -5
Because the hydrolases are a class of enzymes that do a lot for breaking down toxins and metabolic waste. So, if it enters the cell, they're something that can destroy it. In all reality, the pesticide thing is a red herring. Organic farms use pesticides they just use "natural" pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides. Do you know why they use pesticides? Because if they don't, then they won't grow enough bloody crops. I'm certainly not going to support a movement that relies upon the naturalistic fallacy. Ahem. Bullshit. Prince Edward Island is home to some of the most rare and exotic cancers because the potato bugs keep getting resistant to the pesticide, so they use more pesticides to try to kill the bug. It gets to a point where the contamination levels wear down the immune systems of the people living in the area. PEI is just one area that's faced with this kind of problem. Oh, wait. That's the locals, not the consumer. My bad. And thanks to pesticides to keep yields up, beehives appear to be collateral damage in their efforts to get rid of the undesirable pests. This could pose a really serious problem because if the hives aren't dying by the dozens, it's by the hundreds. There may be other pollinators, but they aren't nearly efficient enough to meet the consumer demands. Roundup is supposed to be considered the most effective herbicide on the market. Now, we're seeing the emergence of Roundup resistant plants, so now, Monsanto is going to have to come up with something more poisonous to control weeds so profit can be maximized. Perhaps the pesticide thing in relation to humans is a red herring, but there may be other problems associated with treating food like materials in a mass production line.
|
|