Livestock loss due to GMO corn

[greybeard]

There is no study that shows a definite link between GMO corn and cancer.

There ARE studies that pretty much show a slight increase in multiple myeloma, a cancer affecting bone marrow, among those who often use or apply glyphosate, but equating the herbicide roundup and it's generics to roundup ready corn is way more than a stretch of the imagination. GMO has been around since the early 70s and all that time, the average lifespan of people living in GMO natons and eating GMO has increased--not decreased.

 

[Lucky_P]

We're awash in a sea of 'natural' chemicals and toxins, some of which are potential carcinogens - and many of which are far more potent at causing damage than most man-made chemicals.
When human life expectancy was in the 45-yr range, not many folks LIVED long enough to develop cancer. I don't have specific numbers at my disposal, but I'd hazard a guess that many folks living into their 70s-80s-90s are going to have an experience with 'cancer' of one type or another, which may or may not contribute to their demise - after medical advancements prolong their life even further.

It's easy for those who have all they want to eat - and more - to think that they 'hold the moral high-ground' with regard to what technologies - including genetic modification - that they want to allow - but I'll bet millions of hungry folks around the world would take their chances with the fruits of GMO crops.

 

[Banjo]

I'm not taking the moral high ground. But how would you feel if I sold you a herd of cattle and a bull to go with them,but I have a patent on those cattle and you can't keep any heifers or bulls for your own use. And if you want anymore of those cattle you gotta come back to me to buy them at my price. If that was your only option you probably wouldn't like it very much, and if it wasn't your only option you would probably tell me where to get off at! Right?
If its all about feeding the world!!! Why are there still people in the world hungry? This country has produced bumper crops for years until possibly this year, a few years ago there were so much corn they were piling it on the ground. If we are feeding the world and( I'm not at all opposed to feeding the hungry)why are there still hungry people in the world?

 

[sim.-ang.king]

I'm not taking the moral high ground. But how would you feel if I sold you a herd of cattle and a bull to go with them,but I have a patent on those cattle and you can't keep any heifers or bulls for your own use. And if you want anymore of those cattle you gotta come back to me to buy them at my price. If that was your only option you probably wouldn't like it very much, and if it wasn't your only option you would probably tell me where to get off at! Right?
If its all about feeding the world!!! Why are there still people in the world hungry? This country has produced bumper crops for years until possibly this year, a few years ago there were so much corn they were piling it on the ground. If we are feeding the world and( I'm not at all opposed to feeding the hungry)why are there still hungry people in the world?

Grain works a little different when purchasing then cattle.
Do you raise any large amount of crops?

 

[Banjo]

I'm not taking the moral high ground. But how would you feel if I sold you a herd of cattle and a bull to go with them,but I have a patent on those cattle and you can't keep any heifers or bulls for your own use. And if you want anymore of those cattle you gotta come back to me to buy them at my price. If that was your only option you probably wouldn't like it very much, and if it wasn't your only option you would probably tell me where to get off at! Right?
If its all about feeding the world!!! Why are there still people in the world hungry? This country has produced bumper crops for years until possibly this year, a few years ago there were so much corn they were piling it on the ground. If we are feeding the world and( I'm not at all opposed to feeding the hungry)why are there still hungry people in the world?

Grain works a little different when purchasing then cattle.
Do you raise any large amount of crops?

Back in the decade of the 80's I grew about 200 acres of corn and beans. All conventional. When corn was 2.00 to 2.25 a bushel. All I do now is plant a few rows of OP corn in the garden just for fun. I noticed something interesting this year during that extreme heat that we had. My OP corn just stopped growing, it wasn't dying but just stood there. All the GMO corn in the area kept right on growing and tasseling during that hot weather, a lot of it didn't pollinate. After a few weeks it began to rain, my OP corn started growing again and produced nice sized full ears.

 

[Lucky_P]

banjo,
that was 'generic you' - not you, specifically. Read an article recently - suggested that perhaps farmers ought to visit a Whole Foods store - but recommended that you drive your pickup - it'd be easier to find your truck among all the Mercedes and Lexuses in the parking lot. It's fine for folks with enough $$ to buy what they want to do just that - but when they start dictating what & how others are allowed to feed themselves, it's not so fine, IMO.

Why are there still hungry folks, despite increased production?
Political - Agreements/disagreements between nations may determine whether or not food may be imported/exported
Corruption - As we've seen, over and over, a lot of times when we send aid in the form of food, the the despotic regimes running the show take it, and the folks who need it don't get it.
Economics - those who produce the product deserve to be paid for it; they're not all in the business of crop/animal production just for fun.

The anti-GMO, anti-technology crowd very rarely considers the environmental benefits attendant to technologies like no-till/minimum-till planting, targeted fertilizer/pesticide use - and yes, GMO crops( less pesticide application, less soil erosion due to less need for weed-control tillage, etc.).
Expanding human populations will continue to require marked increases in food production - and there's no way to meet those demands with 'organic' production; technological advances will need to be continually adopted.

 

[Banjo]

Lucky_P .....no offense taken, this makes for an interesting discussion. The biggest thing when its all boiled down
is that an entity has no right to own the rights to a commodity for infinity......besides GOD and He doesn't even charge for the grain. I think there are certain corporations that would patent the oxygen in the air we breathe if they could get away with it.
However, the farmers have accepted GMO with open arms. Subtly giving up a little more independence for convenience. I guess if one good thing has come out of it. It is the No-till planting.
I agree with a lot of what you said earlier. But as we have seen this year in America, GMO corn is not the holy grail
when it comes to severe drought.

http://laughingcloudranch.wordpress.com ... -progress/

 

[TexasBred]

I have a nephew who has a serious aversion to MSG. What if it wasn't required to be labeled? And to answer your question......no, you can't tell the difference by looking. Just because people don't drop dead with the first bite, doesn't mean its good for you. If you want to ruin your health just eat fast food everyday. It may take a little while, but sooner or later it will.

My wife avoids MSG as well but really doesn't know if it is really associated with her restless leg syndrome. Every time you take a deep breath you probably do more harm to your body than eating a meal of GMO corn.

 

[Banjo]

I have a nephew who has a serious aversion to MSG. What if it wasn't required to be labeled? And to answer your question......no, you can't tell the difference by looking. Just because people don't drop dead with the first bite, doesn't mean its good for you. If you want to ruin your health just eat fast food everyday. It may take a little while, but sooner or later it will.

My wife avoids MSG as well but really doesn't know if it is really associated with her restless leg syndrome. Every time you take a deep breath you probably do more harm to your body than eating a meal of GMO corn.

Don't know about MSG and RLS maybe you need to take her dancing more often.......just a little humour there.
Yea, the experts say that the filthiest air we breathe is inside our own homes, especially if you have carpet.

 

[nkotb]

The seed companies charge extra for the GMO because it cost a substantial amount to do the research to develop these products. The yield increase from hybrid vs open pollinated and GMO vs non-GMO hybrids is well documented. The yield trend line for the US has been increasing steadily over the last 70 years. This is not due to taking steps back to organic means of crop production, it is due to farmers doing things right and using the best means of production possible. There is organic soybean production near here where they are cultivating 7 times to control weeds and still only raising 40 bushel beans when everyone else is raising 70 using GMO's and conventional methods. Organic means no synthetic fertililzer and no synthetic chemicals. It is said that the worlds farmers are going to have to produce as much food in the next 50 years as they have in the previous 2000 combined. This cannot be done if we cut our yields in half or more by going back to organic production, this can only be done if we continue to produce using the latest technology.

 

[tsmaxx47]

BS. total and unadulterated. IMO, you should take most of these sorts of reports, in the popular media, with a pound of salt.
They paint 'GMO' with a broad brush, like they're all the same - but they're not. Some have the Bt gene inserted to confer resistance to attack by corn borers, earworms, other insect pests, some have the Roundup-resistance gene, some have inserted genes to confer greater drought resistance, etc.

If you try to Google up info, about all you'll get are organic food/left-wing kook sites - that either don't really give any specific info, no real documentation - just anecdotal reports - and all parrot one another. When you look at one FoodNation/OrganicFood/ActivistPost site after another, and they're all essentially a repeat of the identical 'talking points', I have a hard time giving 'em much credence.

As best I can tell from searching the scientific literature, the anti-GMO folks are keying in on the Cry1Ab protein, an insecticidal protein produced by Bacillus thuringiensis, which is coded for by the gene inserted into Bt corn/soybeans. Cry1Ab is degraded in the mammalian stomach - it's only effective against specific insect larvae - and, the 'organic' folks use Bt out the wazoo, anyway - it's one of their 'approved' insecticide. Additionally, the methods by which some researchers have used in purportedly identifying Cry1Ab in human blood/fetuses/placenta has been debunked as not valid.

There was a French paper which was released - and trumpeted widely by the anti-GMO crowd - claiming that Roundup-Ready crops and glyphosate were causing cancer in laboratory rats/mice. It was eventually even debunked by the EU, due to flaws in experiment design, and refusal by the authors to release pertinent information, etc.
http://iphone.france24.com/en/20121128- ... ize-cancer
Note: if you allow normal laboratory rats to live out their entire lifespan, a significant number of them develop tumors of one kind or another, regardless of whether they're fed RR corn or crops sprayed with glyphosate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1444814

My thoughts too, Lucky.
Not only "approved", but highly recommended as safe and harmless for people and soil. (and most insect pests for that matter)

And, yup, the French "study" that was so widely touted, has been completely rejected by everyone except the people who JUST KNOW GMO's are harmful. Their (the study conductors) methodology and documentation was so horrible not only did the EU reject it, so did most of the member states, including France as I recall.

all well and good fellows BUT what is wrong with packageing labels indentifying products of genetically modified plants and animals. people should have the choice of food that they eat. if they read the same information you are reading there shouldn't be a problem selling your products but the choice should be the consumers.

 

[Banjo]

My thoughts exactly......the reason these seed companies don't want labeling is because they know at least 80% of the public want GMO labeling. And if labeling was ever required most people would refuse it. And the GMO market would dry up over night. I think you are going to see more and more voluntary labeling as it becomes more of the trend.
I saw a statistic that said developing countries like India,Brazil,Argentina are rejecting GMO seed. Their subsistance farmers can't afford to buy the GMO seed every year. But they can save their own seed from OP varieties and survive. Most of the world could feed themselves...barring a major famine.....by being sustainable.....there is not the first thing sustainable about GMO crops.
What's that old saying "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or give him a fishing pole and feed him for life".

 

[nkotb]

You might want to recheck your story, a large part of the GMO corn grown for seed is grown in Argentina and Brazil. These countries are also using the grain from these crops. While 80% of people, your number you pulled out of the air, might think they want these foods labeled, when the price is twice as much as GMO food, I assure you a large part of them will not want to buy the non-GMO. Corn yields stayed static around 25 bpa until the mid-30's, when synthetic fertilizers and hybrid corn came on the scene. Contrast that with 150+bpa national yields now, and the cost may well be more than double for organic vs. GMO.

 

[MO_cows]

Yep, the labeling would raise prices, maybe a lot. It isn't so easy to segregate the products when you are talking millions of tons at a grain elevator.

When the GMO crops first came into use, I saw all the media hype and have to admit, I was worried about the "franken-food" factor and unintended side effects. But 20 years later, the sky hasn't fallen. Instead our farmers are more productive on the same acreage and taking better care of the soil and using less chemicals and fuel overall.

But there are seemingly intelligent and grown up people who just insist on believing in the "boogey man" when it comes to these food products.

 

[Banjo]

You might want to recheck your story, a large part of the GMO corn grown for seed is grown in Argentina and Brazil. These countries are also using the grain from these crops. While 80% of people, your number you pulled out of the air, might think they want these foods labeled, when the price is twice as much as GMO food, I assure you a large part of them will not want to buy the non-GMO. Corn yields stayed static around 25 bpa until the mid-30's, when synthetic fertilizers and hybrid corn came on the scene. Contrast that with 150+bpa national yields now, and the cost may well be more than double for organic vs. GMO.

I'll recheck my story while you recheck yours........All that aside. Maybe GMO is completely harmless lets say it is for the sake of argument. You have a huge multi-national corporation that would like to genetically modify every seed on the planet, down to what you plant in your garden....if you grow one. Is that not enslavement? These people want to put a Terminator gene in everything now to insure their enslavement. Fortunately, enough people have stood up and said no to that diabolical act...so far.

Just like I said previously, there is nothing sustainable about GMO technology, developing countries already know this. No matter what kind of farming you do, if you are not working towards being more and more sustainable in your operation then you are headed out of business, unless you have great job to subsidize it.

 

[nkotb]

What part of my story needs to be rechecked? Would you rather have the GMO in the corn or have growers putting insecticide down with the seed at planting and spraying insecticide 2-3 times during the year to control the insects already controlled? GMO food is all over, Monsanto is just the most notable. The seedless watermelon you get at the grocery store is a GMO, as is most of your sugar. Through tons of research these GMO's have been proven safe, may have helped if the ag sector would have picked a nicer name to call it. Genetically modified is a scary name.

 

[Banjo]

What part of my story needs to be rechecked? Would you rather have the GMO in the corn or have growers putting insecticide down with the seed at planting and spraying insecticide 2-3 times during the year to control the insects already controlled? GMO food is all over, Monsanto is just the most notable. The seedless watermelon you get at the grocery store is a GMO, as is most of your sugar. Through tons of research these GMO's have been proven safe, may have helped if the ag sector would have picked a nicer name to call it. Genetically modified is a scary name.

Well I have to say thank you for educating me about the seedless watermelon....every seedless watermelon I tried this year was pathetic.I had to wait untill the Amish seeded watermelons came in to get a decent one.
I have a refractometer(it measures the sugar content along with nutrient density) and I checked one of the seedless melons. 12 or above is considered good and they tested way below that around 8.
If they are nutrient poor as that would suggest, stands to reason corn and soybeans would be the same way. But, If thats the way to go for you, go ahead and spend all the money you want on it.

 

[TexasBred]

I have a refractometer(it measures the sugar content along with nutrient density) and I checked one of the seedless melons. 12 or above is considered good and they tested way below that around 8.
If they are nutrient poor as that would suggest, stands to reason corn and soybeans would be the same way. But, If thats the way to go for you, go ahead and spend all the money you want on it.

But the fact of the matter is that they are not :!: :!:

 

[greybeard]

I'm not taking the moral high ground. But how would you feel if I sold you a herd of cattle and a bull to go with them,but I have a patent on those cattle and you can't keep any heifers or bulls for your own use. And if you want anymore of those cattle you gotta come back to me to buy them at my price. If that was your only option you probably wouldn't like it very much, and if it wasn't your only option you would probably tell me where to get off at! Right?
If its all about feeding the world!!! Why are there still people in the world hungry? This country has produced bumper crops for years until possibly this year, a few years ago there were so much corn they were piling it on the ground. If we are feeding the world and( I'm not at all opposed to feeding the hungry)why are there still hungry people in the world?

Because of those who think it better to starve them than let them eat GMO produce--usually a fringe faction within those starving people's own govt.

 

[Banjo]

I'm not taking the moral high ground. But how would you feel if I sold you a herd of cattle and a bull to go with them,but I have a patent on those cattle and you can't keep any heifers or bulls for your own use. And if you want anymore of those cattle you gotta come back to me to buy them at my price. If that was your only option you probably wouldn't like it very much, and if it wasn't your only option you would probably tell me where to get off at! Right?
If its all about feeding the world!!! Why are there still people in the world hungry? This country has produced bumper crops for years until possibly this year, a few years ago there were so much corn they were piling it on the ground. If we are feeding the world and( I'm not at all opposed to feeding the hungry)why are there still hungry people in the world?

Because of those who think it better to starve them than let them eat GMO produce--usually a fringe faction within those starving people's own govt.

I don't doubt what you say goes on in places, but most countries presidents/dictators or whatever they are called want to help their own people...unless these same leaders have been corrupted or bought off by some corporation wanting to exploit a certain countries resources.
A large number of farmers in the world at large are subsistance farmers, meaning they live on what they can grow.For example in China, when you get outside of the cities, a vast number of people live on the rice that they can grow each year. THey couldn't afford to buy rice every year to plant. Similiar to how people farmed 100 years ago here. We all know about China's human rights policies, but they don't seem to have a problem with the poor subsistance farmers, if they can feed themselves thats just a problem that is kept off the goverments back IMO.
Mission groups are going all over the world putting in fresh water wells so people can have fresh safe drinking water. Why not show the people of the world how to grow their own food and be sustainable......... but there's no money in that!