It is obvious that nut jobs like myddy86 are so caught up in their sacred cow causes that they overlook the any problems with their pet theories. There is no point in arguing with them because to them it is a religion. The sad part is that they do not care in the least how many people have to suffer. Luckily, for the whole world, they are not in power.
@FarEastPoke You are the religious nut here! I posted peer reviewed studies an UN reports, and you referenced a Penn and Teller episode! It's you who want poor people to suffer! Organic costs less to produce and increases yields. Plus it sells for more than GM, so that means more profit for poor countries and less poverty, less starvation, better living conditions and medical care so they have reduced disease, illness, etc. You are an ANTI-SCIENCE, poor hating, racist,!
Don't like GMO foods? Fine. Don't eat it. Organic forms of farming can only make enough food for 4 billion people. So, which 2 billion + of the worlds population would you like to see starve to death?
@FarEastPoke 11% of organic farms have had GMO contamination, so I am forced to eat GMO's against my will! Can you provide peer reviewed studies suggesting, "Organic forms of farming can only make enough food for 4 billion people", because I've never seen one? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies from the 1970's to the present suggest organic can feed the world.
@FarEastPoke LMAO! Norman Borlaug was not an organic researcher, farmer, etc. He knew so little about organic farming that he falsely believed cow manure was the only fertilizer used in organic farming. Anything Norman Borlaug said about organic was his UNINFORMED OPINION! He had no studies whatsoever to backup his opinion. If you believe Norman Borlaug then go find some peer reviewed studies to back up his claim, I provided several studies to back up mine!
Organic farming is a joke. Organic farming takes up much more LAND than conventional farming. It is naive to think that organic farming can feed the "world." Organic farming requires MANURE, which requires animals, which requires FORAGE LAND. Today there are 7 billion people on the face of the earth. By 2050, we may have 10 billion people. Because organic farming uses nitrogen in manure, they will have to produce significantly MORE manure.
@TheAntiV Organic does NOT require manure! The most used organic fertilizer is leguminous crop cover! Your knowledge of organic and GM is what's a joke! GM crops require more space than organic for refuges and buffer zones. I already provided evidence that organic can increase yields, feed the world, etc. By the way the population is not ever supposed to reach 10 billion the estimates state that the population will decrease in 2080 before we even reach 10 billion.
I said we MAY have 10 billion people by 2050. High-yielding farming cannot be done on a large scale using organic farming practices. There is no way that organic farmers can control pathogen infections (viruses, fungi, bacteria, insects) using natural biological controls. These require some utilization of chemicals.
@TheAntiV Where is the evidence for your claims? 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers or GM farmers. I already posted studies that organic can feed the world. In fact most GM crops don't even produce food, Bt corn is mostly for ethanol, cattle feed and corn starch, corn syrup, etc. GM Canola and Cotton are for oil, GM Sugar beets for sugar, etc. These GM crops waste land real food crops could use!
@myndy86 The organic farmers use a natural "pesticide" from Bacillus thuringensis bacteria (called Bt) to keep caterpillar insect damage to a minimum. Bt toxin has been used for almost a 100 years, has no harmful effects in humans, binds to specific receptors in the gut of specific insects, and is very effective in controlling specific classes of insects. Genetic engineering has been able to LEARN what the toxin protein is that controls the insects.
The gene for this protein is probably one of the most studied genes on the face of this earth!!! This gene has been engineered to work in plants and is very effective in preventing insect damage WITHOUT PESTICIDE SPRAYS. IN FACT, USE OF Pesticides on CROPS SUCH AS SOYBEAN, CORN, AND COTTON HAS GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE VARIETIES.
This is the SAME Protein that the organic farmers use!!!! Using genetically engineered varieties makes farming easier, less costly, and MORE CHEMICAL FREE than conventional varieties. And this is the BEGINNING. Plants have genes that can fight off (albeit weakly) almost every pest. Now that we have learned the sequence of almost all plant genes we can begin to use these genes to protect crops from fungi, bacteria, insects, etc.
and do this in a CHEMICAL FREE WAY! This is very important for us, but more important for the DEVELOPING world which devotes 75% of their income or more to food! Simply put, genetically engineered varieties use the SAME PROTEIN THAT THE ORGANIC FARMERS USE TO CONTROL SPECIFIC INSECTS!!!
@TheAntiV The reason that the developing world devotes 75% of their income to food is because many of those people only $1-2(U.S.) a day! Another problem is that government subsidies on GM crops drive the cost of food down and farmers in the poor countries can not compete with the artificial prices of the developed countries! Developing countries need organic, which is generally cheaper to produce, increases yields, sells for more. This raises income, reduces poverty, hunger, etc.
@TheAntiV Bt crops are different than Bt spray. Bt in GM crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
@TheAntiV Technically GM crops use more pesticides, etc., especially in comparison to organic. 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins, Bt crops themselves are classified as "plant-pesticides" by the EPA. If a conventional farmer doesn't have a pest problem they probably wont use any pesticides but even if there was no pest problem Bt crops are always producing a pesticide. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and use virtually no herbicides.
Plus, where's your source that most CM crops don't produce food? Also, I'm pretty sure those things you listed are a common ingredient in food and nor are they useless.
@TheAntiV My source? Do you not know what GM crops are approved for human consumption? I gave a list of foods the only ones missing from the list are probably alfalfa(mostly cattle feed) soy(yields less, uses more fertilizer) and potato which is only recently approved. You are talking about reducing starvation with GM crops, corn starch, corn oil, corn syrup, sugar, canola oil, cotton oil, are FOOD ADDITIVES, they are empty calories or a starch, people need NUTRIENTS not fillers.
@TheAntiV We already produce more than enough food to feed the world(with real food not food additives), without using GM crops. We could probably still feed the world in 2050 by switching most developing countries to organic, but we could easily feed the 2050 world if we stopped growing most GM corn! Most GM corn is used for ethanol(not food) and cattle feed, livestock occupy a quarter of emerged land (including a third of arable land), and use eight percent of all water resources!
@TheAntiV "The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) estimates that, even accounting for the energy value of the meat produced, the loss of calories that result from feeding cereals to animals instead of using cereals directly as human food represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people." srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
Stop growing GM corn for ethanol and cattle feed and we feed 2050, no problem!
One 2008 study – led by USDA researcher Steven E. Naranjo – found that:
"It is estimated that between 1996 and 2005 the deployment of Bt cotton has reduced the volume of insecticide active ingredient used for pest control in cotton by 94.5 million kilograms and increased farm income through reduced costs and improved yields by US $7.5 billion, with most of the benefit accrued by farmers in developing nations…
This represents a 19.4% reduction and was the largest reduction in pesticide use afforded by any GMO crop… After 11 years of Bt cotton cultivation, control failures due to resistance have not been detected under field conditions."
@TheAntiV diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
@TheAntiV "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation." china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
@TheAntiV "our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the appearance and subsequent spread of nontarget pests at an agro-landscape level." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466880
@TheAntiV Did you read the study! They only compared spray pesticides and didn't include the Bt crops themselves as pesticides or even estimate the amount of Cry they produced. Look at what happened after 2005 from not using pesticides, China had a mirid bug infestation, now they spray a lot more pesticides to control that, the same type of thing happened in various places, now most Bt crop farmers use a lot more pesticides to control various pests that the Bt crops don't!
@TheAntiV Bt crops are different than Bt spray. Bt in GM crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
Wow, you clearly aren't a smart individual. All of the world's cultivatable land has already been taken up. In order to increase food production the key is to INCREASE YIELD --- grow more plants on the same or smaller space. Organic farming can use higher yielding varieties (developed by conventional breeding). However the demand for MANURE is too great. It has been estimated, that, at most, organic farming practices can feed 4 billion people. We have passed that already.
@TheAntiV Wow, you clearly aren't a smart individual. All of the world's cultivatable land has NOT already been taken up! Have you ever seen a golf course, or people's lawns? Are you so stupid that you don't know that land can be cultivated? Organic does increase yields in poor countries, READ THE INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED STUDIES AND UN REPORTS I POSTED! Organic doesn't need manure in fact most organic farms use leguminous crop cover as fertilizer!
@TheAntiV Orgnic doesn't need manure, and we don't need synthetic fertilizer either, "Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use." journals.cambridge"dot
It is a common misconception that organic agriculture does not use pesticides. Some pesticides used on organic farms contain inorganic copper - and since copper is not biodegradable, this can lead to toxic copper accumulation in the soil. Approved organic pesticides are relatively less effective and must be applied at high levels (e.g. copper salts, sulfur) or must be applied frequently (e.g. pyrethrin).
Are you really fucking dumb enough to think people are going to cultivate crops on their lawns or golf courts?
According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man.
As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks.
Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades . Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“.
However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats , and had the potential to kill many species, including humans.
Mail Online according to research done at University of Leeds:
"The research found organic farms had, on average, 12 per cent more biodiversity in terms of the number and variety of plants, birds, earthworms and insects.
However, the organic farms in the study produced less than half of the yield of their conventional counterparts, according to the results which are published online in Ecology Letters."
'Our results show that to produce the same amount of food in the UK using organic rather than conventional means, we'd need to use twice the amount of land for agriculture.
'As the biodiversity benefits of organic farming are small, then the lower yield may be a luxury we can't afford, particularly in the more productive areas of the UK.'
It has been estimated that organic farming can only feed 4 billion people by Norman Borlaug. You know, the guy who won a FUCKING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?
"This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material you have – the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues – and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than four billion people."
"For leguminous cover crop to be used in countries like Bangladesh, it would have to take the place of a food crop, effectively halving the amount of food the land can provide. The cropping intensity in many developed countries is well over two crops per year, but I have seen as many as four to five crops per year in places that are elevated and flood-free....."
"Besides substituting for a food crop, green manure crops would also require cutting and ploughing under the soil. While ploughing technology has increased dramatically in the last decade in many developed countries, it is mostly the two-wheel tractors or roto-tiller types; thus making it a significant challenge to plough down any high-biomass green manure or crop residues into the soil."
"Some propose a greater use of leguminous food crops to supply nitrogen for the proceeding cereal crop and where possible, growers would love to expand pulses. However, in South Asia, while the national pulse yields appear stable, switching to more of these crops is quite risky for individual farmers due to unseasonable rainfall, diseases, and poor growing environments."
-Craig Meisner Adjunct International Professor of Crops and Soils at Cornell University of Ithaca, New York.
@TheAntiV Because of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc. introduced during the Green Revolution(Norman Borlaug) in Bangladesh "livestock and fish populations were diminishing", since the switch to organic "farmers derive more varieties of fish""Livestock and poultry also develop more rapidly, thereby enriching the food security of the people."fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
The unanimous act of Congress states "Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history." The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation.
The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and many believe that, without the Revolution, there would have been greater famine and malnutrition. India saw annual wheat production rise from 10 million tons in the 1960s to 73 million in 2006. The average person in the developing world consumes roughly 25% more calories per day now than before the Green Revolution.
@TheAntiV "In the flood plains of Bangladesh, community-based organic agriculture resulted from an increasing awareness to the harmful effects of the Green Revolution. The latter was showing a tremendous decline in crop yields despite an enormous increase in the need for the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Groundwater was less available""the health situation was worsening (including gastric, skin and respiratory diseases)" fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
@TheAntiV This is an OPINION piece, it is not a peer reviewed study, and it doesn't reference ANY peer reviewed studies to back it's claims! Look at FAO, etc. projects in Bangladesh! "a group of farmers organized themselves to experiment with green manure and compost. Compost made of water hyacinth, available in plenty, became quite popular"fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
@TheAntiV "In addition to chemical-free agricultural practices, the production of biodiversity is built-in within the Nayakrishi method of food production. As a fundamental principle of agricultural practice, Nayakrishi farmers reject monoculture and base their practices on mixed cropping and crop rotation. It has an immediate effect in overcoming the present narrow genetic base, but is also a highly effective method for pest management and the nutritional health of the soil."
@myndy86 "The report also points out that projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92 % reduction in insecticide use for rice, leading to important savings for poor farmers." srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/press_releases/20110308_agroecology-report-pr_en.pdf
@TheAntiV Barack Obama won "a FUCKING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE", should I just believe whatever he says even if he provides ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS CLAIMS!
@TheAntiV Leguminous crop cover can still be used to supply the majority of fertilizer and there is always going to be at least some level of manure to supplement the use of leguminous crop cover. You are also forgetting(you really just don't know much about organic) several other fertilizers used in organic. One example is fishmeal, which uses parts of fish that fish processors don't use. Not only does this provide N but it also provides nutrients that urea, ammonia, etc. don't!
@TheAntiV Leeds footnotes cont."Additionally, we are aware that winter cereals on organic farms are often grown as fodder crops and not for human consumption." You can`t apply a single variety of fodder crop, in one location, in one growing season, to all crops throughout the whole world in all years. The overwhelming majority of studies suggest organic yields can feed the world, organic foods are healthier/more nutritious and organic farming is overall better for the environment.
@TheAntiV Leeds study footnotes say, "winter cereal fields(3 per farm) on average produce 44% the yield of comparable conventional fields""The data(in tonnes per ha) are not directly comparable with the yield a farmer would measure""These are also not "whole farm" outputs. Clearly, different crops will give rise to different yield estimates and the figure of 44% does not represent all organic crops in all locations."
@TheAntiV Read your own link! "Rotenone was commonly used by organic growers in the past. However, at this time (2005), no rotenone products have been reviewed for approval by OMRI." The link also states, "Availability and Sources: Readily available from garden and farm suppliers; however no products are known to be currently approved for organic production."
So, Rotenone is no longer allowed in organic farming, but it is still used and is readily available for CONVENTIONAL FARMING.
@TheAntiV You copied that statement word for word from this Anti-Organic article "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture". If you want to reference articles that is fine, provide me the link or the title and I will read the article, but you have no idea what you are talking about, you are just copying and pasting from other people's articles and trying to convince people that this is your own. You are just a PLAGIARIST!
@TheAntiV You are talking about people starving in 2050, are you really that dumb to believe people would rather starve than give up playing golf or having a lawn?
WOW! You just used a study from 40 years ago, before government organic certification, regulations, etc. ever existed! If you had any recent evidence you wouldn't have referenced a 40 year old study!
@TheAntiV This is false! 52% of organic farmers use NO PESTICIDES whatsoever, and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers and significantly less than Bt crops(that are supposed to express Cry 100% of the time). National organic standards require crop rotation, nutrient management, mechanical weeding, etc. before using any sprays! If an organic grower decided to use a pesticide, they must show the organic certifying agency that they have used every other means!
I asked you for your source claiming that most GM crops are primarily used for additives. Don't try to change the subject.
Right now, an estimated one billion people go hungry each day. So add two billion more people, a limited supply of arable land, plus the fact that rising incomes will boost demand for meat and dairy products, plus the fact that many key natural resources are already being overexploited.
You're also forgetting that global climate change has a huge impact on agriculture in the near future. Making the ability to grow food especially at lower elevations at at sub tropical areas a whole lot harder. Also, GM crops aren't the only source of food that is used for feeding cattle.
@TheAntiV No, but GM corn is mostly used for ethanol and cattle feed, if we actually used that land to grow food we could probably feed billions more!
Also, Bangladesh isn't the world. Just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work anywhere.
Also, I never disagreed with crop rotation or decreasing monoculture. I think the world should employ a variety of strategies for decrease world hunger. I just don't believe a single strategy will work for all since the fact that people and cultures vary.
The main problems after the Green Revolution mainly have to do with governments and foundations began to cut back on agricultural research, or to redirect money into the problems created by intensive farming, like environmental damage. Over a 20-year period, Western aid for agricultural development in poor countries fell by almost half, with some of the world’s most important research centers suffering mass layoffs.
"Just as Dr. Borlaug had predicted, the consequences of this loss of focus began to show up in the world’s food system toward the end of the century. Output continued to rise, but because fewer innovations were reaching farmers, the growth rate slowed.
That lull occurred just as food and feed demand was starting to take off, thanks in part to rising affluence across much of Asia."
Organic farmers say they can ultimately exceed the yields of conventional rivals through smarter soil management. But some believe organic farming, if it is to stay true to its principles, would require vastly more land and resources than is currently being used. Asks Alex Avery, a research director at the Hudson Institute think tank: "How much Bambi habitat do you want to plow down?"
40 years ago. What the fuck are you talking about? Which report are you even referring to? Also, you're complaining about plaigerism on a youtube comment section braniac. Who the fuck cares. I always use and post sources appropriately when I do university work. What are you going to do? narc on me? Plus, at least my comments aren't being marked as spam. That shows to me that you're just repeating what you said to others.
"Organic agriculture is small -- very small, when measured as a percentage of farmland in the U.S. Despite the oft-repeated claim that organic is the fastest-growing segment of the food industry, only about 2.5 million acres of US cropland were certified as Organic in 2008, the year in which USDA did its most comprehensive survey of organic farmers. That's 0.7 percent of the 370 million acres of US cropland. "
"At current growth rates, organic will cover less than 3 percent of U.S. cropland in 2050. So organic food is a niche, plain and simple, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, given the price premium that growers need to keep farming organically."
Also, according to USDA data, organic farmers are less productive than conventional farmers. The only organic crop that seems to out perform conventional version is sweat potato.
Other dangerous chemicals found in organic food include pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine.
In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases.
A new study by the University of Copenhagen revealed that organic foods contained no more nutrients than non-organic foods grown with the use of pesticides.
Researchers studied five different crops -- carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes -- which were cultivated both organically (without pesticides) and conventionally (with the use of pesticides) and found that there was no higher level of trace elements in the food grown organically.
Study leader Dr Susanne Bügel said: "No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs."
@TheAntiV University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
@TheAntiV Orv Heti "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
@TheAntiV Universitetet i Oslo "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
@TheAntiV French government food safety agency AFSSA "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals(Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/organic vegetables contain far less nitrates" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
@TheAntiV "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
@TheAntiV "intake of organic foods leads to some advantages, such as the ingestion of a higher content of phenolic compounds and some vitamins, such as vitamin C, and a lower content of nitrates and pesticides" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x/abstract
@TheAntiV "organic tomatoes had higher vitamin C, carotenoids, and polyphenol contents (except for chlorogenic acid) than conventional tomatoes.""concentrations of vitamin C and polyphenols remained higher in purees made out of organic tomatoes." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15479014
@TheAntiV "Organic grape juices showed statistically different (p<0.05) higher values of total polyphenols and resveratrol as compared conventional grape juices." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683842
Universitatea de Medicină si Farmacie "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
@TheAntiV "Consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk (OR 0.64 (95 % CI 0.44, 0.93))" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17761012
"organically grown strawberries had a higher antiproliferative activity for both cell types at the highest concentration than the conventionally grown, and this might indicate a higher content of secondary metabolites with anticarcinogenic properties in the organically grown strawberries." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478244
@TheAntiV "After adjusting for covariables (recruitment group, maternal age, maternal education, use of supplements and season), statistical significance was retained in the group of the strict organic dairy users (P < 0.001 for rumenic acid). Hence, the levels of CLA and TVA in human milk can be modulated if breastfeeding mothers replace conventional dairy and/or meat products by organic ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17349086
@TheAntiV "Our results clearly show that organic red oranges have a higher phytochemical content (i. e., phenolics, anthocyanins and ascorbic acid), total antioxidant activity and bioactivity than integrated red oranges" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096701
@TheAntiV I can keep posting peer reviewed studies for you if this isn't enough studies for you, but as you can see the huge majority of peer reviewed studies suggest on average organic food has higher levels of certain nutrients/healthier.
@TheAntiV You just quoted Alex Avery's dad Dennis Avery who also is funded by Monsanto along with Center for Global Food Issues and the source he quoted for that statement has come out and stated they never did such a study! There have been much more E.coli cases caused by conventional farms than there have for organic. You just used a make believe stat that has already been proven FALSE!
@TheAntiV "There have been many claims that eating organic foods increases exposure to micro-biological contaminants. Studies investigating these claims have found no evidence to support them. It is important to realize that all organic foods must meet the same quality and safety standards applied to conventional foods"fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq4/en/
@TheAntiV What is greenbiz? Is that a peer reviewed journal? Stop quoting random internet articles and start quoting peer reviewed studies with links or titles or some way I can look them up myself.
@TheAntiV You don't even know what report I'm talking about because you just copy and paste your arguments without even reading them! You copy and pasted a report from 1971! You are such a moron, stop wasting my time with links and copy and paste jobs of BS articles you didn't even read yourself and didn't even check the links they claim support their position, which are usually the exact opposite of what they claim!
I just read the past three few articles I posted and most of them are from the 2000s. Why don't you stop wasting my time with your childish organic bullshit. Speaking of posting articles you didn't even read yourself is that why you posted an article in which you believed proved the adverse effects of GMO's when the authors said the risk was very low? Hypocrisy is the key to flexibility.
@TheAntiV We are in the 2000's you moron, not the 1970's! The study never said the risk is highly unlikely and even if the authors stated that in an interview, etc. that means there is still the possibility for adverse affects, and that is why your biased link purposely avoided using the study in their review!
@TheAntiV What is this from, the same opinion article that doesn't reference any studies to back it's claim that you posted before, then I posted FAO reports that refuted this?
@TheAntiV Then what is the title to the report or link, etc. You don't expect me just to believe your quotes, when most of them have been from biased sources and many of them have been outright lies?
I already posted or mentioned a few articles mentioning studies. Did you just miss those or did you just assume they were part of some massive conspiracy?
@TheAntiV Which links are you talking about? You posted links saying things like Rotenone is harmful but forgot to mention that only conventional farmers still use it!
@TheAntiV Did you just quote Alex Avery? Like the same Alex Avery that is known throughout the scientific community for making false statements(like his dad Dennis Avery). Like the Alex Avery from Hudson Institute who gets his funding from companies like Monsanto and who(like almost al of your sources) has a financial, personal, etc. conflict of interest? Please, quote from independent sources and not Monsanto funded sources!
Yeah because when posting sources that were funded from organizations like greenpeace means there's absolutely no chance of them being biased. Also, I did post independent studies you dumb cunt. Do you have seeing problems now? Have you ever considered getting glasses? Avery's words only made up a smart part of my postings.
@TheAntiV Which studies were funded by Greenpeace? Greenpeace had to sue Monsanto(more than once) to have a court force them to release data from studies they were hiding from the public. Greenpeace(who the court awarded the data to) funded their own statistical analysis(which I didn't reference). What I did reference was a study done by independent researchers that included the Greepeace funded analysis, the study itself was NOT funded by Greenpeace! Learn to read!
@TheAntiV What does that have to do with the massive amounts of water use by the Green Revolution, causing huge reductions in the water table, or water contamination from synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, etc., or soil erosion and the numerous other problems caused by the Green Revolution? FAO states that organic farming generally has equal yields to areas that used the Green Revolution, and if people would have listened in the 1970's to the researchers, they would have used organic!
@TheAntiV I already posted studies that looked at yields, etc. from over 70 developing countries which had average crop yield increases from 79% to over double the yields of conventional. Maybe organic won't work in absolutely every situation, but on average the crop yields would significantly increase, the cost of inputs would significantly decrease, less water would be used, farmers would profit more, reducing poverty, hunger, etc., and a long list of other benefits.
@TheAntiV I don't need a source, EVERYBODY knows what these crops are used for, Bt corn varieties are almost all #2 Yellow, that isn't for human food you moron! Do you eat canola or cotton besides the oil, do you eat sugar beets? This is common sense which you obviously lack as well as an even basic understanding of what GM crops are actually used commercially.
@FarEastPoke "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@FarEastPoke "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
@FarEastPoke "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
Any coincidence that the letters of Monsanto rearranged form "Not Mason" and "Saton Mon?" It's like the Masonic, Illuminati, Lucifer-lovin', NWO group is the obvious elephant in the room here.
Yes indeed some of the dumbest people that I have ever seen don't know about the fact that genetically modified foods have destroyed India's farmers and you dumb asses with your dumb ass attitudes don't even realize that it is about controlling all of the food supplies. It is about making big bucks. Do you know about the farmer that was sued because Mansantos canola crops contaminated his field with their GM crops and took his land?
It saddens me how gullible people are. Jeffrey Smith has zero scientific credentials. He doesn't even have a college education. Yet, people listen to his scientific analysis of research and dismiss the opinions of credible scientific bodies like the AMA, WHO, FSANZ, Royal Society, etc etc.
The science is sound, GMO's are safe. We've been eating them for 20 years with zero reports of negative effects. GMO is here to stay.
@mahldawg and you trust AMA, WHO, FSANZ, Royal Society, etc etc? wow uve got a lot to go before you find out what your worth is in this very big bad world of ours! i have connections with scientists who have refused training to modify foods after they learnt of its dangers and along you come saying GMO is all good? LOL! and who says you need scientific credentials to harbor scientific knowledge? well aren't you severely conditioned by the system! a long way to go my friend, a long way!
"who says you need scientific credentials to harbor scientific knowledge?"
So we should just accept the word of some fear mongering fuckhead who probably hasn't the slightest idea about what he's talking about? Greenpeace imbeciles like you are a pathetic waste and a hindrance to progress. Come back when you have some strong support.
,,wow, you re so lovely crowd... ok... now... how many people in here believe in God! Raise your hands and fight for the Lord! Whos from Florida for me to like him?,, that freak is using NLP to manipulate this crows... disgusting, I lll remember that video for argument, where and how green activists get their supporters. Hes like some christian preast, uses only emotionally expressins to turn people on his side, he easilly does not even need any rational argument. Shame on you Jeffrey Smith
The interesting thing about organic foods is that it contains less chemicals and yet, generally costs more than intensively-farmed food. But there are a couple of reasons. One big reason is that farmed foods are cheaper to buy in the shops, since you, as a tax payer, are paying for them in your tax dollars. Agrochemical agriculture is increasingly subsidized by the taxpayer through the government, whereas organically produced foods receives no subsidies whatsoever. Cont....
In the days of Noah, Yahuwah destroyed all the animal hybrids that were a result of human genetic engineering....Just as it was then, so it is now....The Book of Revelation chronicles how a third of all the (Genetically Modified) green trees and ALL the (GMO) green grass will be destroyed!
just watch this on youtube. Codex Alimentarius 1 of 4
watch?v=spoucYXa3-A
and google this:
ig farben codex alimentarius
IG Farben was a conglomaration of 3 German Chemical companies that runned the Concentration camps in Poland during the second world war. their trick are patents, copying mother nature and selling it to us, don't trust anyone who tells you that vitamins are bad. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!! TRUST ME!
I just wont buy anything with corn, soy, canola or any of that bull. We have the power as consumers to vote with our money! You know how powerless i felt when i heard about all this stuff? Then i realized, they are doing this for OUR MONEY! we have all of the power in the world to fight this. If we dont buy their products, they lose profits and we win. so their Monsanto.
@XOalakanaXO your stupid.. they are jus a small amount of the modified foods mostly fruits and veggies.. watch "The future of food" on netflix you will learn lots they even modify fish now.. almost everything and they don't even label it witch they should and they also changed the standards for organic.. watch the movie
@vazmojno There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
@kelbykross1 UN report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development, by 400 scientists, concluded biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty, but organic can alleviate hunger and poverty in 3rd world countries. NO GM FOOD HAS EVER BEEN "PROVEN SAFE"!
@kelbykross1Fail on your part! GM is not selective or cross breeding etc. USDA(and just about everyone else's) definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)""Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
fail at 1:15, i bet almost all of these people eat delicious bananas
and domesticated meats
and domesticated plants
Sure you can find individual cases (like this) but feeding 3rd world countries with proven safe foods should not be halted due to our opinions on certain individual issues
@kelbykross1 Codex Alimentarius is a part of the 2nd phase of the Jesuit plan to bring the whole world under the subjection of the Papacy and to restart persecution. This is encapsulated within a 300 year plan to counter the reformation. The 1st phase started in 1965 at the end of the Vatican II council. The 2nd phase started in October 2009. Codex Alimentarius was to pass just 2 months later in December of 2009. Bees are being poisoned by Jesuit Roundup spliced into GMO seeds.
@turretsCanada "it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible for commercializing these GM plants." sciencedirect"dot"com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
Geneticist David Suzuki on GM foods. "The experiments simply haven`t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." "Anyone that says,`Oh we know that this is perfectly safe`, I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."
@turretsCanada "The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20941377
@turretsCanada "EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide thoroughly to ensure that the pesticide will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment.""EPA considers many factors regarding the PIP, including""Studies assessing the risks to human health, Studies assessing risks to nontarget organisms and the environment The potential for gene flow The need for insect resistance management plans" Biotech companies do the studies for the risk assessment, the EPA just reviews them!
@turretsCanada USDA wants to do even less regulating of GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The pilot project will explore two voluntary mechanisms: (1) A petitioner-submitted environmental report based upon which APHIS would develop an EA or EIS and (2) an EA or EIS prepared by a contractor funded by a cooperative service agreement between the petioner and APHIS." Biotech companies basically do their own risk assessment!
@turretsCanada USDA doesn't generally test GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 67 "Regultions in 340.6(c)(5) require the petitioner to submit specific information to meet regulatory requirements and inform APHIS. While petitioners may submit much of the necessary information, APHIS retains primary responsibility for researching and analyzing all the data necessary to prepare the environmental documents." USDA reviews data given to them by biotech companies and fills out an EIS.
@turretsCanada FDA doesn't test GMOs as part of their regulations. "FDA determined that bioengineered foods should be regulated like their conventional counterparts. FDA has not to date established any regulations specific to bioengineered food.""FDA established an informal process by which firms can inform the Agency that they have completed a food or feed safety assessment to the Agency." GMO manufacturers do their own risk assessment!
"GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health ... no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." Saving lives and providing nutrients to people who probably woudnt have gotten them. 7 billion people now. We should be conducting more research to find better, safer, less costly GMOs.
Capitalism is the Monetary bondage and serfdom of humanity in a politically manipulated , armed , tyrannical MARKET MECHANISM of alienation,exploitation and suffering. The Business as usual is the negation of our common humanity in cooperation and harmony to take care of our real needs and well being. Capitalism dominated by Corporate or STATE criminals is the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration. A DECOCRATIC MAJORITY FOR A MONEYLESS,CLASSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES
this guy is a total moron. When he has a PhD after his name maybe ill take his scientific viewpoint seriously. Making money off peoples ignorance is wrong.
Find me on Face-book The-Sovereign-Order-of-Knights-of-Humanity-SOKH I ask to check me out. Then you can see that I have been doing. You may want to come and be part of something bigger and see what we can do together.If I so inspire you.
The Millions Against Monsanto campaign is taking action across the country. Protests will continue, leading up World Food Day, which will be the largest day of action in US history on October 16th, 2011.
@10hazelnut UN report Agroecology and the Right to Food "Today`s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecologocal projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects"
@10hazelnut GM does NOT make food cheaper for people in poor countries because it does nothing to reduce poverty and makes farming more expensive. UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development by 400 scientisits, concluded biotechnology has very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty. Organic can alleviate hunger and poverty.
those poor people who can't even afford to buy ANY food at all have no choice of what they will get and if there are cheaper foods made by the biotechnology then I don't see why they will deny them. There will be risks and beneficial facts about genetically modified food and it's almost always the ones who can afford food go against it.
Okay, how so? Can you give me a credible argument to support your claim against the fact that the inventor of genetically modified crops has saved an estimated one billion lives? Get your stupid fucking conspiracy theories out of science. If we only used organic foods as much as physically possible, we'd only be able to feed 2/3 Basically what you're saying is "I have my own opinion and whoever doesn't share this opinion is stupid." You're calling us the children?
@CarpetEraser You said, "the inventor of genetically modified crops has saved an estimated one billion lives". Are you talking about Norman Borlaug? If so, he never created a GMO in his entire life, he created hybrids(like those used in organic). Can you provide peer reviewed studies suggesting organic can only feed 2/3 of the world, because I've never seen one? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies from the 1970's to the present suggest organic can feed the world.
@CarpetEraser "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
@CarpetEraser "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
It is obvious that nut jobs like myddy86 are so caught up in their sacred cow causes that they overlook the any problems with their pet theories. There is no point in arguing with them because to them it is a religion. The sad part is that they do not care in the least how many people have to suffer. Luckily, for the whole world, they are not in power.
FarEastPoke 6 days ago
@FarEastPoke You are the religious nut here! I posted peer reviewed studies an UN reports, and you referenced a Penn and Teller episode! It's you who want poor people to suffer! Organic costs less to produce and increases yields. Plus it sells for more than GM, so that means more profit for poor countries and less poverty, less starvation, better living conditions and medical care so they have reduced disease, illness, etc. You are an ANTI-SCIENCE, poor hating, racist,!
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't like GMO foods? Fine. Don't eat it. Organic forms of farming can only make enough food for 4 billion people. So, which 2 billion + of the worlds population would you like to see starve to death?
FarEastPoke 1 week ago
@FarEastPoke 11% of organic farms have had GMO contamination, so I am forced to eat GMO's against my will! Can you provide peer reviewed studies suggesting, "Organic forms of farming can only make enough food for 4 billion people", because I've never seen one? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies from the 1970's to the present suggest organic can feed the world.
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86
Watch the following clip on YouTube:
Norman Borlaug on Penn and Teller: BS
FarEastPoke 1 week ago
@FarEastPoke LMAO! Norman Borlaug was not an organic researcher, farmer, etc. He knew so little about organic farming that he falsely believed cow manure was the only fertilizer used in organic farming. Anything Norman Borlaug said about organic was his UNINFORMED OPINION! He had no studies whatsoever to backup his opinion. If you believe Norman Borlaug then go find some peer reviewed studies to back up his claim, I provided several studies to back up mine!
myndy86 1 week ago
@myndy86
Organic farming is a joke. Organic farming takes up much more LAND than conventional farming. It is naive to think that organic farming can feed the "world." Organic farming requires MANURE, which requires animals, which requires FORAGE LAND. Today there are 7 billion people on the face of the earth. By 2050, we may have 10 billion people. Because organic farming uses nitrogen in manure, they will have to produce significantly MORE manure.
TheAntiV 1 week ago
@TheAntiV Organic does NOT require manure! The most used organic fertilizer is leguminous crop cover! Your knowledge of organic and GM is what's a joke! GM crops require more space than organic for refuges and buffer zones. I already provided evidence that organic can increase yields, feed the world, etc. By the way the population is not ever supposed to reach 10 billion the estimates state that the population will decrease in 2080 before we even reach 10 billion.
myndy86 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheAntiV 1 week ago
@TheAntiV
I said we MAY have 10 billion people by 2050. High-yielding farming cannot be done on a large scale using organic farming practices. There is no way that organic farmers can control pathogen infections (viruses, fungi, bacteria, insects) using natural biological controls. These require some utilization of chemicals.
TheAntiV 1 week ago
@TheAntiV Where is the evidence for your claims? 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers or GM farmers. I already posted studies that organic can feed the world. In fact most GM crops don't even produce food, Bt corn is mostly for ethanol, cattle feed and corn starch, corn syrup, etc. GM Canola and Cotton are for oil, GM Sugar beets for sugar, etc. These GM crops waste land real food crops could use!
myndy86 6 days ago
@myndy86 The organic farmers use a natural "pesticide" from Bacillus thuringensis bacteria (called Bt) to keep caterpillar insect damage to a minimum. Bt toxin has been used for almost a 100 years, has no harmful effects in humans, binds to specific receptors in the gut of specific insects, and is very effective in controlling specific classes of insects. Genetic engineering has been able to LEARN what the toxin protein is that controls the insects.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@myndy86
The gene for this protein is probably one of the most studied genes on the face of this earth!!! This gene has been engineered to work in plants and is very effective in preventing insect damage WITHOUT PESTICIDE SPRAYS. IN FACT, USE OF Pesticides on CROPS SUCH AS SOYBEAN, CORN, AND COTTON HAS GONE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE VARIETIES.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@myndy86
This is the SAME Protein that the organic farmers use!!!! Using genetically engineered varieties makes farming easier, less costly, and MORE CHEMICAL FREE than conventional varieties. And this is the BEGINNING. Plants have genes that can fight off (albeit weakly) almost every pest. Now that we have learned the sequence of almost all plant genes we can begin to use these genes to protect crops from fungi, bacteria, insects, etc.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
and do this in a CHEMICAL FREE WAY! This is very important for us, but more important for the DEVELOPING world which devotes 75% of their income or more to food! Simply put, genetically engineered varieties use the SAME PROTEIN THAT THE ORGANIC FARMERS USE TO CONTROL SPECIFIC INSECTS!!!
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV The reason that the developing world devotes 75% of their income to food is because many of those people only $1-2(U.S.) a day! Another problem is that government subsidies on GM crops drive the cost of food down and farmers in the poor countries can not compete with the artificial prices of the developed countries! Developing countries need organic, which is generally cheaper to produce, increases yields, sells for more. This raises income, reduces poverty, hunger, etc.
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Bt crops are different than Bt spray. Bt in GM crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Technically GM crops use more pesticides, etc., especially in comparison to organic. 100% of Bt crops are supposed to express cry proteins, Bt crops themselves are classified as "plant-pesticides" by the EPA. If a conventional farmer doesn't have a pest problem they probably wont use any pesticides but even if there was no pest problem Bt crops are always producing a pesticide. 52% of organic farmers use no pesticides whatsoever and use virtually no herbicides.
myndy86 6 days ago
@myndy86
Plus, where's your source that most CM crops don't produce food? Also, I'm pretty sure those things you listed are a common ingredient in food and nor are they useless.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV My source? Do you not know what GM crops are approved for human consumption? I gave a list of foods the only ones missing from the list are probably alfalfa(mostly cattle feed) soy(yields less, uses more fertilizer) and potato which is only recently approved. You are talking about reducing starvation with GM crops, corn starch, corn oil, corn syrup, sugar, canola oil, cotton oil, are FOOD ADDITIVES, they are empty calories or a starch, people need NUTRIENTS not fillers.
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV We already produce more than enough food to feed the world(with real food not food additives), without using GM crops. We could probably still feed the world in 2050 by switching most developing countries to organic, but we could easily feed the 2050 world if we stopped growing most GM corn! Most GM corn is used for ethanol(not food) and cattle feed, livestock occupy a quarter of emerged land (including a third of arable land), and use eight percent of all water resources!
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV "The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) estimates that, even accounting for the energy value of the meat produced, the loss of calories that result from feeding cereals to animals instead of using cereals directly as human food represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people." srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
Stop growing GM corn for ethanol and cattle feed and we feed 2050, no problem!
myndy86 6 days ago
One 2008 study – led by USDA researcher Steven E. Naranjo – found that:
"It is estimated that between 1996 and 2005 the deployment of Bt cotton has reduced the volume of insecticide active ingredient used for pest control in cotton by 94.5 million kilograms and increased farm income through reduced costs and improved yields by US $7.5 billion, with most of the benefit accrued by farmers in developing nations…
TheAntiV 6 days ago
This represents a 19.4% reduction and was the largest reduction in pesticide use afforded by any GMO crop… After 11 years of Bt cotton cultivation, control failures due to resistance have not been detected under field conditions."
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV diversity index of the insect community in the Bt cotton fields is lower than conventional cotton fields, while the pest dominant concentration index is higher. The balance of the insect community is weaker in Bt cotton fields than in fields of conventional crops, because some kinds of insects thrive in the Bt fields and this is more likely to cause outbreaks"china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "Populations of pests other than the cotton bollworm have increased in Bt cotton fields and some have even replaced it as primary pests because the GM plant is slow at controlling those pests" "Scientists also verified with lab tests and field monitoring that the cotton bollworm will develop resistance to the GM cotton and concluded that Bt cotton will not resist the bollworm after eight to ten years of continuous cultivation." china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33779.htm
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "our analyses show that Bt cotton has become a source of mirid bugs and that their population increases are related to drops in insecticide use in this crop. Hence, alterations of pest management regimes in Bt cotton could be responsible for the appearance and subsequent spread of nontarget pests at an agro-landscape level." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466880
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Did you read the study! They only compared spray pesticides and didn't include the Bt crops themselves as pesticides or even estimate the amount of Cry they produced. Look at what happened after 2005 from not using pesticides, China had a mirid bug infestation, now they spray a lot more pesticides to control that, the same type of thing happened in various places, now most Bt crop farmers use a lot more pesticides to control various pests that the Bt crops don't!
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Bt crops are different than Bt spray. Bt in GM crops induce metabolic variations involving the primary nitrogen pathway, can make the crops expressing cry proteins phenotypically abnormal affecting growth and reproduction of the crops, high levels of nitrogen can significantly increase the level of cry proteins in the crops, increased potential for HGT, etc. compared to Bt spray, which is used less often than the 100% supposed expression in Bt crops and is more degradeable.
myndy86 6 days ago
Wow, you clearly aren't a smart individual. All of the world's cultivatable land has already been taken up. In order to increase food production the key is to INCREASE YIELD --- grow more plants on the same or smaller space. Organic farming can use higher yielding varieties (developed by conventional breeding). However the demand for MANURE is too great. It has been estimated, that, at most, organic farming practices can feed 4 billion people. We have passed that already.
TheAntiV 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Wow, you clearly aren't a smart individual. All of the world's cultivatable land has NOT already been taken up! Have you ever seen a golf course, or people's lawns? Are you so stupid that you don't know that land can be cultivated? Organic does increase yields in poor countries, READ THE INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED STUDIES AND UN REPORTS I POSTED! Organic doesn't need manure in fact most organic farms use leguminous crop cover as fertilizer!
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV Orgnic doesn't need manure, and we don't need synthetic fertilizer either, "Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use." journals.cambridge"dot
"org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304
Now where are the peer viewed studies suggesting organic can only feed 4 billion people?
myndy86 6 days ago
It is a common misconception that organic agriculture does not use pesticides. Some pesticides used on organic farms contain inorganic copper - and since copper is not biodegradable, this can lead to toxic copper accumulation in the soil. Approved organic pesticides are relatively less effective and must be applied at high levels (e.g. copper salts, sulfur) or must be applied frequently (e.g. pyrethrin).
TheAntiV 6 days ago
Are you really fucking dumb enough to think people are going to cultivate crops on their lawns or golf courts?
According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential – or serious – health risks.
Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades . Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats , and had the potential to kill many species, including humans.
nysaes(dot)cornell(dot)edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone(dot)php
TheAntiV 6 days ago
Mail Online according to research done at University of Leeds:
"The research found organic farms had, on average, 12 per cent more biodiversity in terms of the number and variety of plants, birds, earthworms and insects.
However, the organic farms in the study produced less than half of the yield of their conventional counterparts, according to the results which are published online in Ecology Letters."
TheAntiV 6 days ago
'Our results show that to produce the same amount of food in the UK using organic rather than conventional means, we'd need to use twice the amount of land for agriculture.
'As the biodiversity benefits of organic farming are small, then the lower yield may be a luxury we can't afford, particularly in the more productive areas of the UK.'
TheAntiV 6 days ago
According to the Swiss Forum for International Agricultural Research:
"In practice all existing cropland cannot be provided annually
with N by an additional leguminous cover crop without
significant disruption to crop area and production."
sfiar(dot)ch/fileadmin/documents/recommend_dubock_field_crops_research(dot)pdf
TheAntiV 6 days ago
It has been estimated that organic farming can only feed 4 billion people by Norman Borlaug. You know, the guy who won a FUCKING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?
"This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material you have – the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues – and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than four billion people."
TheAntiV 6 days ago
"For leguminous cover crop to be used in countries like Bangladesh, it would have to take the place of a food crop, effectively halving the amount of food the land can provide. The cropping intensity in many developed countries is well over two crops per year, but I have seen as many as four to five crops per year in places that are elevated and flood-free....."
TheAntiV 6 days ago
"Besides substituting for a food crop, green manure crops would also require cutting and ploughing under the soil. While ploughing technology has increased dramatically in the last decade in many developed countries, it is mostly the two-wheel tractors or roto-tiller types; thus making it a significant challenge to plough down any high-biomass green manure or crop residues into the soil."
TheAntiV 6 days ago
"Some propose a greater use of leguminous food crops to supply nitrogen for the proceeding cereal crop and where possible, growers would love to expand pulses. However, in South Asia, while the national pulse yields appear stable, switching to more of these crops is quite risky for individual farmers due to unseasonable rainfall, diseases, and poor growing environments."
-Craig Meisner Adjunct International Professor of Crops and Soils at Cornell University of Ithaca, New York.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV Because of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc. introduced during the Green Revolution(Norman Borlaug) in Bangladesh "livestock and fish populations were diminishing", since the switch to organic "farmers derive more varieties of fish""Livestock and poultry also develop more rapidly, thereby enriching the food security of the people."fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
myndy86 6 days ago
The unanimous act of Congress states "Dr. Borlaug has saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived, and likely has saved more lives in the Islamic world than any other human being in history." The Nobel committee put a number on this, estimating that he was personally and directly responsible for saving over one billion human beings in the Third World from starvation.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and many believe that, without the Revolution, there would have been greater famine and malnutrition. India saw annual wheat production rise from 10 million tons in the 1960s to 73 million in 2006. The average person in the developing world consumes roughly 25% more calories per day now than before the Green Revolution.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV "In the flood plains of Bangladesh, community-based organic agriculture resulted from an increasing awareness to the harmful effects of the Green Revolution. The latter was showing a tremendous decline in crop yields despite an enormous increase in the need for the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Groundwater was less available""the health situation was worsening (including gastric, skin and respiratory diseases)" fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV This is an OPINION piece, it is not a peer reviewed study, and it doesn't reference ANY peer reviewed studies to back it's claims! Look at FAO, etc. projects in Bangladesh! "a group of farmers organized themselves to experiment with green manure and compost. Compost made of water hyacinth, available in plenty, became quite popular"fao.org/docrep/005/ac784e/ac784e-01.htm
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV "In addition to chemical-free agricultural practices, the production of biodiversity is built-in within the Nayakrishi method of food production. As a fundamental principle of agricultural practice, Nayakrishi farmers reject monoculture and base their practices on mixed cropping and crop rotation. It has an immediate effect in overcoming the present narrow genetic base, but is also a highly effective method for pest management and the nutritional health of the soil."
myndy86 6 days ago
@myndy86 "The report also points out that projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92 % reduction in insecticide use for rice, leading to important savings for poor farmers." srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/press_releases/20110308_agroecology-report-pr_en.pdf
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV Barack Obama won "a FUCKING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE", should I just believe whatever he says even if he provides ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS CLAIMS!
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV Leguminous crop cover can still be used to supply the majority of fertilizer and there is always going to be at least some level of manure to supplement the use of leguminous crop cover. You are also forgetting(you really just don't know much about organic) several other fertilizers used in organic. One example is fishmeal, which uses parts of fish that fish processors don't use. Not only does this provide N but it also provides nutrients that urea, ammonia, etc. don't!
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Leeds footnotes cont."Additionally, we are aware that winter cereals on organic farms are often grown as fodder crops and not for human consumption." You can`t apply a single variety of fodder crop, in one location, in one growing season, to all crops throughout the whole world in all years. The overwhelming majority of studies suggest organic yields can feed the world, organic foods are healthier/more nutritious and organic farming is overall better for the environment.
myndy86 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV Leeds study footnotes say, "winter cereal fields(3 per farm) on average produce 44% the yield of comparable conventional fields""The data(in tonnes per ha) are not directly comparable with the yield a farmer would measure""These are also not "whole farm" outputs. Clearly, different crops will give rise to different yield estimates and the figure of 44% does not represent all organic crops in all locations."
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV Read your own link! "Rotenone was commonly used by organic growers in the past. However, at this time (2005), no rotenone products have been reviewed for approval by OMRI." The link also states, "Availability and Sources: Readily available from garden and farm suppliers; however no products are known to be currently approved for organic production."
So, Rotenone is no longer allowed in organic farming, but it is still used and is readily available for CONVENTIONAL FARMING.
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
Rotenone isn't the only harmful substance used in organic production.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV You copied that statement word for word from this Anti-Organic article "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture". If you want to reference articles that is fine, provide me the link or the title and I will read the article, but you have no idea what you are talking about, you are just copying and pasting from other people's articles and trying to convince people that this is your own. You are just a PLAGIARIST!
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV You are talking about people starving in 2050, are you really that dumb to believe people would rather starve than give up playing golf or having a lawn?
WOW! You just used a study from 40 years ago, before government organic certification, regulations, etc. ever existed! If you had any recent evidence you wouldn't have referenced a 40 year old study!
myndy86 6 days ago
@TheAntiV This is false! 52% of organic farmers use NO PESTICIDES whatsoever, and those that do use significantly less than conventional farmers and significantly less than Bt crops(that are supposed to express Cry 100% of the time). National organic standards require crop rotation, nutrient management, mechanical weeding, etc. before using any sprays! If an organic grower decided to use a pesticide, they must show the organic certifying agency that they have used every other means!
myndy86 6 days ago
I asked you for your source claiming that most GM crops are primarily used for additives. Don't try to change the subject.
Right now, an estimated one billion people go hungry each day. So add two billion more people, a limited supply of arable land, plus the fact that rising incomes will boost demand for meat and dairy products, plus the fact that many key natural resources are already being overexploited.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
You're also forgetting that global climate change has a huge impact on agriculture in the near future. Making the ability to grow food especially at lower elevations at at sub tropical areas a whole lot harder. Also, GM crops aren't the only source of food that is used for feeding cattle.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
@TheAntiV No, but GM corn is mostly used for ethanol and cattle feed, if we actually used that land to grow food we could probably feed billions more!
myndy86 5 days ago
Also, Bangladesh isn't the world. Just because it works in one place doesn't mean it will work anywhere.
Also, I never disagreed with crop rotation or decreasing monoculture. I think the world should employ a variety of strategies for decrease world hunger. I just don't believe a single strategy will work for all since the fact that people and cultures vary.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
The main problems after the Green Revolution mainly have to do with governments and foundations began to cut back on agricultural research, or to redirect money into the problems created by intensive farming, like environmental damage. Over a 20-year period, Western aid for agricultural development in poor countries fell by almost half, with some of the world’s most important research centers suffering mass layoffs.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
"Just as Dr. Borlaug had predicted, the consequences of this loss of focus began to show up in the world’s food system toward the end of the century. Output continued to rise, but because fewer innovations were reaching farmers, the growth rate slowed.
That lull occurred just as food and feed demand was starting to take off, thanks in part to rising affluence across much of Asia."
-NY Times.
TheAntiV 6 days ago
Organic farmers say they can ultimately exceed the yields of conventional rivals through smarter soil management. But some believe organic farming, if it is to stay true to its principles, would require vastly more land and resources than is currently being used. Asks Alex Avery, a research director at the Hudson Institute think tank: "How much Bambi habitat do you want to plow down?"
TheAntiV 6 days ago
"Here, the authors demonstrate limited appreciation of crop ecology and
agronomy. First, because much productive land already carries
multiple crops. In needy places such as Bangladesh, for
example, average cropping intensity is already 2.5/year.
Second, because most land that now carries one crop or less
each year does so for limitations of temperature or water supply
that exclude the possibility of a second crop."
TheAntiV 5 days ago
"In those places, legume cover crops could only be introduced in a 2-year
cropping sequence. In others, for example southern Australia,
cover crops could replace legume-based pastures now in
rotations with crops (Peoples et al., 2001) but with an uncertain
advantage to N gain. Farmers there, in a region where a
significant proportion (70%) of N is provided by biological
fixation, have shown no enthusiasm for that option."
TheAntiV 5 days ago
"There are no current statistics to estimate the proportion of world current
cropland that could accept an additional legume cover crop, but
it is certainly much less than 100% as used by Badgley et al.
(2007), and could only be increased significantly, in areas with
suitable thermal regimes, by massive expansion of irrigation for
which water is not available."
TheAntiV 5 days ago
"If the authors had sought to explain why Smil (2001, 2004) was mistaken in his assessment of the small legume-based productivity of OA (maximum
support for 3–4 billion) they would have been exposed to more
realistic cropping scenarios than that they proposed."
sfiar(dot)ch/fileadmin/documents/recommend_dubock_field_crops_research(dot)pdf
TheAntiV 5 days ago
40 years ago. What the fuck are you talking about? Which report are you even referring to? Also, you're complaining about plaigerism on a youtube comment section braniac. Who the fuck cares. I always use and post sources appropriately when I do university work. What are you going to do? narc on me? Plus, at least my comments aren't being marked as spam. That shows to me that you're just repeating what you said to others.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
"Organic agriculture is small -- very small, when measured as a percentage of farmland in the U.S. Despite the oft-repeated claim that organic is the fastest-growing segment of the food industry, only about 2.5 million acres of US cropland were certified as Organic in 2008, the year in which USDA did its most comprehensive survey of organic farmers. That's 0.7 percent of the 370 million acres of US cropland. "
TheAntiV 5 days ago
"At current growth rates, organic will cover less than 3 percent of U.S. cropland in 2050. So organic food is a niche, plain and simple, and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, given the price premium that growers need to keep farming organically."
-Greenbiz
TheAntiV 5 days ago
Also, according to USDA data, organic farmers are less productive than conventional farmers. The only organic crop that seems to out perform conventional version is sweat potato.
scribd(dot)com/doc/47829728/A-Detailed-Analysis-of-US-Organic-Crops
"Yields of conventional crops are also significantly higher than organics when it comes to basic crops like wheat, corn, soy, rice and potatoes."
TheAntiV 5 days ago
Comment removed
TheAntiV 5 days ago
Other dangerous chemicals found in organic food include pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine.
In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
A new study by the University of Copenhagen revealed that organic foods contained no more nutrients than non-organic foods grown with the use of pesticides.
Researchers studied five different crops -- carrots, kale, mature peas, apples and potatoes -- which were cultivated both organically (without pesticides) and conventionally (with the use of pesticides) and found that there was no higher level of trace elements in the food grown organically.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
Study leader Dr Susanne Bügel said: "No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs."
TheAntiV 5 days ago
Comment removed
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV University of Kassel "Studies under controlled experimental conditions show a clear advantage for staple food grown under biological/ecological farming conditions as compared to those from conventional farming methods."" lower undesirable (e.g. nitrates) and higher desirable (e.g. vit. C, trace elements) components are present."ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3054635
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Orv Heti "Organic crops contain a significantly higher amount of certain antioxidants (vitamin C, polyphenols and flavonoids) and minerals, as well as have higher dry matter content than conventional ones.""there is a lower level of pesticide residues, nitrate and some heavy metal contaminations in organic crops compared to conventional ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17297755
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Universitetet i Oslo "A review of existing literature reveals that organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods seem to have a higher content of antioxidants in plant products and a higher content of fat-soluble vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids in animal products. Animal studies (among them, on rabbits and chickens) show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195159
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV French government food safety agency AFSSA "1/ organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals(Fe, Mg); and contain more anti-oxidant micronutrients such as phenols and salicylic acid, 2/organic animal products contain more polyunsaturated fatty acids""4/94–100% of organic food does not contain any pesticide residues, 5/organic vegetables contain far less nitrates" agronomy-journal"dot"org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/agro/2009019&Itemid=129
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities." onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.3000/abstract
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "intake of organic foods leads to some advantages, such as the ingestion of a higher content of phenolic compounds and some vitamins, such as vitamin C, and a lower content of nitrates and pesticides" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02436.x/abstract
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV "organic tomatoes had higher vitamin C, carotenoids, and polyphenol contents (except for chlorogenic acid) than conventional tomatoes.""concentrations of vitamin C and polyphenols remained higher in purees made out of organic tomatoes." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15479014
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "Organic grape juices showed statistically different (p<0.05) higher values of total polyphenols and resveratrol as compared conventional grape juices." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17683842
Universitatea de Medicină si Farmacie "Ecological food is tastier and contains more essential amino-acids, vitamin C, and micro-nutriments than usual food" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16610189
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV "Consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk (OR 0.64 (95 % CI 0.44, 0.93))" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17761012
"organically grown strawberries had a higher antiproliferative activity for both cell types at the highest concentration than the conventionally grown, and this might indicate a higher content of secondary metabolites with anticarcinogenic properties in the organically grown strawberries." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16478244
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAntiV "After adjusting for covariables (recruitment group, maternal age, maternal education, use of supplements and season), statistical significance was retained in the group of the strict organic dairy users (P < 0.001 for rumenic acid). Hence, the levels of CLA and TVA in human milk can be modulated if breastfeeding mothers replace conventional dairy and/or meat products by organic ones." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17349086
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "Our results clearly show that organic red oranges have a higher phytochemical content (i. e., phenolics, anthocyanins and ascorbic acid), total antioxidant activity and bioactivity than integrated red oranges" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096701
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV I can keep posting peer reviewed studies for you if this isn't enough studies for you, but as you can see the huge majority of peer reviewed studies suggest on average organic food has higher levels of certain nutrients/healthier.
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV You just quoted Alex Avery's dad Dennis Avery who also is funded by Monsanto along with Center for Global Food Issues and the source he quoted for that statement has come out and stated they never did such a study! There have been much more E.coli cases caused by conventional farms than there have for organic. You just used a make believe stat that has already been proven FALSE!
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV "There have been many claims that eating organic foods increases exposure to micro-biological contaminants. Studies investigating these claims have found no evidence to support them. It is important to realize that all organic foods must meet the same quality and safety standards applied to conventional foods"fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq4/en/
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV What is greenbiz? Is that a peer reviewed journal? Stop quoting random internet articles and start quoting peer reviewed studies with links or titles or some way I can look them up myself.
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV You don't even know what report I'm talking about because you just copy and paste your arguments without even reading them! You copy and pasted a report from 1971! You are such a moron, stop wasting my time with links and copy and paste jobs of BS articles you didn't even read yourself and didn't even check the links they claim support their position, which are usually the exact opposite of what they claim!
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myndy86
I just read the past three few articles I posted and most of them are from the 2000s. Why don't you stop wasting my time with your childish organic bullshit. Speaking of posting articles you didn't even read yourself is that why you posted an article in which you believed proved the adverse effects of GMO's when the authors said the risk was very low? Hypocrisy is the key to flexibility.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV We are in the 2000's you moron, not the 1970's! The study never said the risk is highly unlikely and even if the authors stated that in an interview, etc. that means there is still the possibility for adverse affects, and that is why your biased link purposely avoided using the study in their review!
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV I didn't reference Smil(2001, 2004), so what are you talking about, stay on topic and stop wasting my time with these BS comments.
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
I never said you did.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV What is this from, the same opinion article that doesn't reference any studies to back it's claim that you posted before, then I posted FAO reports that refuted this?
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
No it's a report on actual gathered data.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Then what is the title to the report or link, etc. You don't expect me just to believe your quotes, when most of them have been from biased sources and many of them have been outright lies?
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
I already posted or mentioned a few articles mentioning studies. Did you just miss those or did you just assume they were part of some massive conspiracy?
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Which links are you talking about? You posted links saying things like Rotenone is harmful but forgot to mention that only conventional farmers still use it!
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Did you just quote Alex Avery? Like the same Alex Avery that is known throughout the scientific community for making false statements(like his dad Dennis Avery). Like the Alex Avery from Hudson Institute who gets his funding from companies like Monsanto and who(like almost al of your sources) has a financial, personal, etc. conflict of interest? Please, quote from independent sources and not Monsanto funded sources!
myndy86 5 days ago
@myndy86
Yeah because when posting sources that were funded from organizations like greenpeace means there's absolutely no chance of them being biased. Also, I did post independent studies you dumb cunt. Do you have seeing problems now? Have you ever considered getting glasses? Avery's words only made up a smart part of my postings.
TheAntiV 5 days ago
@TheAntiV Which studies were funded by Greenpeace? Greenpeace had to sue Monsanto(more than once) to have a court force them to release data from studies they were hiding from the public. Greenpeace(who the court awarded the data to) funded their own statistical analysis(which I didn't reference). What I did reference was a study done by independent researchers that included the Greepeace funded analysis, the study itself was NOT funded by Greenpeace! Learn to read!
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV What does that have to do with the massive amounts of water use by the Green Revolution, causing huge reductions in the water table, or water contamination from synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, etc., or soil erosion and the numerous other problems caused by the Green Revolution? FAO states that organic farming generally has equal yields to areas that used the Green Revolution, and if people would have listened in the 1970's to the researchers, they would have used organic!
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV I already posted studies that looked at yields, etc. from over 70 developing countries which had average crop yield increases from 79% to over double the yields of conventional. Maybe organic won't work in absolutely every situation, but on average the crop yields would significantly increase, the cost of inputs would significantly decrease, less water would be used, farmers would profit more, reducing poverty, hunger, etc., and a long list of other benefits.
myndy86 5 days ago
@TheAntiV I don't need a source, EVERYBODY knows what these crops are used for, Bt corn varieties are almost all #2 Yellow, that isn't for human food you moron! Do you eat canola or cotton besides the oil, do you eat sugar beets? This is common sense which you obviously lack as well as an even basic understanding of what GM crops are actually used commercially.
myndy86 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FarEastPoke "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FarEastPoke "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FarEastPoke "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same amount of land.""in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods" sciencedaily"dot"com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any coincidence that the letters of Monsanto rearranged form "Not Mason" and "Saton Mon?" It's like the Masonic, Illuminati, Lucifer-lovin', NWO group is the obvious elephant in the room here.
internalizepeace 1 week ago
Yes indeed some of the dumbest people that I have ever seen don't know about the fact that genetically modified foods have destroyed India's farmers and you dumb asses with your dumb ass attitudes don't even realize that it is about controlling all of the food supplies. It is about making big bucks. Do you know about the farmer that was sued because Mansantos canola crops contaminated his field with their GM crops and took his land?
but of course you really don't care.
dragonseptor 1 week ago 2
It saddens me how gullible people are. Jeffrey Smith has zero scientific credentials. He doesn't even have a college education. Yet, people listen to his scientific analysis of research and dismiss the opinions of credible scientific bodies like the AMA, WHO, FSANZ, Royal Society, etc etc.
The science is sound, GMO's are safe. We've been eating them for 20 years with zero reports of negative effects. GMO is here to stay.
mahldawg 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
gstallion69 1 week ago
@mahldawg and you trust AMA, WHO, FSANZ, Royal Society, etc etc? wow uve got a lot to go before you find out what your worth is in this very big bad world of ours! i have connections with scientists who have refused training to modify foods after they learnt of its dangers and along you come saying GMO is all good? LOL! and who says you need scientific credentials to harbor scientific knowledge? well aren't you severely conditioned by the system! a long way to go my friend, a long way!
gstallion69 1 week ago
@gstallion69
"who says you need scientific credentials to harbor scientific knowledge?"
So we should just accept the word of some fear mongering fuckhead who probably hasn't the slightest idea about what he's talking about? Greenpeace imbeciles like you are a pathetic waste and a hindrance to progress. Come back when you have some strong support.
TheAntiV 1 week ago
,,wow, you re so lovely crowd... ok... now... how many people in here believe in God! Raise your hands and fight for the Lord! Whos from Florida for me to like him?,, that freak is using NLP to manipulate this crows... disgusting, I lll remember that video for argument, where and how green activists get their supporters. Hes like some christian preast, uses only emotionally expressins to turn people on his side, he easilly does not even need any rational argument. Shame on you Jeffrey Smith
Petrhrabal 3 weeks ago
63 people are blind
mikeymouseheheepic1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The interesting thing about organic foods is that it contains less chemicals and yet, generally costs more than intensively-farmed food. But there are a couple of reasons. One big reason is that farmed foods are cheaper to buy in the shops, since you, as a tax payer, are paying for them in your tax dollars. Agrochemical agriculture is increasingly subsidized by the taxpayer through the government, whereas organically produced foods receives no subsidies whatsoever. Cont....
AdmiralCoconuts 1 month ago
this is really retarded, anyone still watching after this first argument needs a proper education
eenger 2 months ago
@eenger Anyone not still watching after this first argument needs a proper education.
myndy86 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the days of Noah, Yahuwah destroyed all the animal hybrids that were a result of human genetic engineering....Just as it was then, so it is now....The Book of Revelation chronicles how a third of all the (Genetically Modified) green trees and ALL the (GMO) green grass will be destroyed!
victoryismine1844 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
just watch this on youtube. Codex Alimentarius 1 of 4
watch?v=spoucYXa3-A
and google this:
ig farben codex alimentarius
IG Farben was a conglomaration of 3 German Chemical companies that runned the Concentration camps in Poland during the second world war. their trick are patents, copying mother nature and selling it to us, don't trust anyone who tells you that vitamins are bad. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!! TRUST ME!
fschmitz4life 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
trust no one
TheFreeRadicalist 3 months ago
I just wont buy anything with corn, soy, canola or any of that bull. We have the power as consumers to vote with our money! You know how powerless i felt when i heard about all this stuff? Then i realized, they are doing this for OUR MONEY! we have all of the power in the world to fight this. If we dont buy their products, they lose profits and we win. so their Monsanto.
XOalakanaXO 3 months ago 3
and people like Jeffrey Smith have power to manipulate you psychologicaly...
Petrhrabal 3 weeks ago
@XOalakanaXO your stupid.. they are jus a small amount of the modified foods mostly fruits and veggies.. watch "The future of food" on netflix you will learn lots they even modify fish now.. almost everything and they don't even label it witch they should and they also changed the standards for organic.. watch the movie
Kudosive 1 week ago
WHERE IS JULIAN ASANGE?
mummyswig 4 months ago
check out my vid on how Monsanto was born
vazmojno 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vazmojno There will be rallies throughout the U.S. on 10/16/11 to get mandatory labeling of all products containing genetically engineered/modified organisms.
Go to "Millions Against Monsanto World Food Day 2011" on facebook, for more information.
Go to the "organicconsumers" website to sign petitions.
Type "Millions Against Monsanto Campaign 2011" in the youtube search
myndy86 4 months ago
@kelbykross1 UN report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development, by 400 scientists, concluded biotech crops have very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty, but organic can alleviate hunger and poverty in 3rd world countries. NO GM FOOD HAS EVER BEEN "PROVEN SAFE"!
myndy86 5 months ago
@kelbykross1Fail on your part! GM is not selective or cross breeding etc. USDA(and just about everyone else's) definition of Genetic Engineering "under guidelines issued by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, genetic engineering is defined as the genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques (7CFR340: 340.1)""Recombinant DNA techniques (DNA formed by combining segments of DNA from different organisms)"
myndy86 5 months ago
fail at 1:15, i bet almost all of these people eat delicious bananas
and domesticated meats
and domesticated plants
Sure you can find individual cases (like this) but feeding 3rd world countries with proven safe foods should not be halted due to our opinions on certain individual issues
kelbykross1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kelbykross1 Codex Alimentarius is a part of the 2nd phase of the Jesuit plan to bring the whole world under the subjection of the Papacy and to restart persecution. This is encapsulated within a 300 year plan to counter the reformation. The 1st phase started in 1965 at the end of the Vatican II council. The 2nd phase started in October 2009. Codex Alimentarius was to pass just 2 months later in December of 2009. Bees are being poisoned by Jesuit Roundup spliced into GMO seeds.
bornbythesea 5 months ago
@turretsCanada "it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible for commercializing these GM plants." sciencedirect"dot"com/science/article/pii/S0160412011000055
Geneticist David Suzuki on GM foods. "The experiments simply haven`t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." "Anyone that says,`Oh we know that this is perfectly safe`, I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."
myndy86 5 months ago
@turretsCanada "The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20941377
myndy86 5 months ago
@turretsCanada "EPA evaluate the proposed pesticide thoroughly to ensure that the pesticide will not pose unreasonable risks of harm to human health or the environment.""EPA considers many factors regarding the PIP, including""Studies assessing the risks to human health, Studies assessing risks to nontarget organisms and the environment The potential for gene flow The need for insect resistance management plans" Biotech companies do the studies for the risk assessment, the EPA just reviews them!
myndy86 5 months ago
@turretsCanada USDA wants to do even less regulating of GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No.67 "The pilot project will explore two voluntary mechanisms: (1) A petitioner-submitted environmental report based upon which APHIS would develop an EA or EIS and (2) an EA or EIS prepared by a contractor funded by a cooperative service agreement between the petioner and APHIS." Biotech companies basically do their own risk assessment!
myndy86 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turretsCanada USDA doesn't generally test GMOs. Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 67 "Regultions in 340.6(c)(5) require the petitioner to submit specific information to meet regulatory requirements and inform APHIS. While petitioners may submit much of the necessary information, APHIS retains primary responsibility for researching and analyzing all the data necessary to prepare the environmental documents." USDA reviews data given to them by biotech companies and fills out an EIS.
myndy86 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@turretsCanada FDA doesn't test GMOs as part of their regulations. "FDA determined that bioengineered foods should be regulated like their conventional counterparts. FDA has not to date established any regulations specific to bioengineered food.""FDA established an informal process by which firms can inform the Agency that they have completed a food or feed safety assessment to the Agency." GMO manufacturers do their own risk assessment!
myndy86 5 months ago
You guys are so retarded I have eaten GMOs and I feel FINE!
liberal882 5 months ago
good speakerim going to watch all the parts
MrCactopuss 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrCactopuss 6 months ago
"GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health ... no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." Saving lives and providing nutrients to people who probably woudnt have gotten them. 7 billion people now. We should be conducting more research to find better, safer, less costly GMOs.
turretsCanada 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GMOs=Corporate profits and government payouts. It's such a scary issue bc it has to do with our motherfucking FOOD.
Monsanto the leader in biotechnology is probably the most unethical criminal enterprise on the planet.
All you have to do is Google 'Monstanto Revolving Doors' or type 'Monsanto Documentary' to watch the numerous documentaries exposing the truth.
aldojr86 6 months ago
Capitalism is the Monetary bondage and serfdom of humanity in a politically manipulated , armed , tyrannical MARKET MECHANISM of alienation,exploitation and suffering. The Business as usual is the negation of our common humanity in cooperation and harmony to take care of our real needs and well being. Capitalism dominated by Corporate or STATE criminals is the abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration. A DECOCRATIC MAJORITY FOR A MONEYLESS,CLASSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES
arzoyan 6 months ago
this guy is a total moron. When he has a PhD after his name maybe ill take his scientific viewpoint seriously. Making money off peoples ignorance is wrong.
KorlicTheGreat 6 months ago
Find me on Face-book The-Sovereign-Order-of-Knights-of-Humanity-SOKH I ask to check me out. Then you can see that I have been doing. You may want to come and be part of something bigger and see what we can do together.If I so inspire you.
truthandharmonycom 6 months ago
/watch?v=kQIw5qkq2QY
The Millions Against Monsanto campaign is taking action across the country. Protests will continue, leading up World Food Day, which will be the largest day of action in US history on October 16th, 2011.
uncere 7 months ago
@10hazelnut UN report Agroecology and the Right to Food "Today`s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecologocal projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects"
myndy86 7 months ago
@10hazelnut GM does NOT make food cheaper for people in poor countries because it does nothing to reduce poverty and makes farming more expensive. UN/World Bank report International Assessment of Agricultural Science Technology Development by 400 scientisits, concluded biotechnology has very little potential to alleviate hunger or poverty. Organic can alleviate hunger and poverty.
myndy86 7 months ago
those poor people who can't even afford to buy ANY food at all have no choice of what they will get and if there are cheaper foods made by the biotechnology then I don't see why they will deny them. There will be risks and beneficial facts about genetically modified food and it's almost always the ones who can afford food go against it.
10hazelnut 7 months ago
@10hazelnut
here is a headline that just came out from Bloomberg:
"Monsanto spent $1.4 million lobbying gov't in 1Q"
This kind of news comes out and most Americans only want to hear about Anthony Weiners penis pictures. This is depressing :(
yoyo4real21 7 months ago
worldwideweb.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Berlinski%20on%20Dawkins.PDF
fashklash 7 months ago
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE
LoveVanillaRose 8 months ago
The major goal for GMO is complete control of the food supply anyone that thinks
that it is here to feed the masses is fooled and still has the mind of a child.
dragonseptor 8 months ago 7
@dragonseptor
Okay, how so? Can you give me a credible argument to support your claim against the fact that the inventor of genetically modified crops has saved an estimated one billion lives? Get your stupid fucking conspiracy theories out of science. If we only used organic foods as much as physically possible, we'd only be able to feed 2/3 Basically what you're saying is "I have my own opinion and whoever doesn't share this opinion is stupid." You're calling us the children?
CarpetEraser 1 week ago
@CarpetEraser You said, "the inventor of genetically modified crops has saved an estimated one billion lives". Are you talking about Norman Borlaug? If so, he never created a GMO in his entire life, he created hybrids(like those used in organic). Can you provide peer reviewed studies suggesting organic can only feed 2/3 of the world, because I've never seen one? The huge majority of peer reviewed studies from the 1970's to the present suggest organic can feed the world.
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpetEraser "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa""backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
myndy86 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarpetEraser "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
myndy86 1 week ago