Aquaponic Gardening

A Community and Forum For Aquaponic Gardeners

http://worldtruth.tv/usda-forces-whole-foods-to-accept-monsanto/

I applaud Whole Foods willingness to "coexist" in exchange for regulation reform, because GE is an important technology we should embrace for the future. It is a shame that it is being misused and has such a bad rap, because our consumptive nature as humans can't "coexist" with out GMOs.

Views: 824

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Surly you jest.

I must disagree with you about GMO's. they are dangerous because of the unpredictability of what the GMO will do when it gets out into nature. Now if you are referring to genetic selective breeding then I am not apposed to that. With genetic selective breeding there is more predictability on what you are going to get as a result.

I don't agree that a population which has grown too large is solved by GE.  In my view, it simply results in a large, obese and generally unhealthy society.  We try not to eat GE foods but, to each his own.

By 2050, the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion people, (FAO) food and feed production need to increase by 70 percent to ensure the demand of people's food. (FAO). Land has to be more productive and more production area is required. In 2050, 70 percent of world’s population will live in urban areas (FAO).

Just some facts, to think about. What will be the solution for that? I dont know yet ;)

Some are not going to like my answer,  the solution is not to increase our food production by 70% , which I do not believe can be done because of several reasons, but to reduce the population.
 
BenHehle Beamz said:

By 2050, the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion people, (FAO) food and feed production need to increase by 70 percent to ensure the demand of people's food. (FAO). Land has to be more productive and more production area is required. In 2050, 70 percent of world’s population will live in urban areas (FAO).

Just some facts, to think about. What will be the solution for that? I dont know yet

High fructose corn syrup is the answer. Along with low nutritional value, high calorie "filler materials" made from corn and soy (GE of coarse). And if we can somehow work in there ...using millions of acres of perfectly good arable land to grow  crops not for food to feed hungry people, but for Ethonal, so that all of us who are 'lucky enough' to afford a car and gasoline, can feel better  about it because the fuel we use now has the word "bio" thrown in the name...Yes, those must be the answers :)

IDK about 2050 or anything, but up until now it seems like up until now, the hunger problem seems to be one of 'distribution' rather than 'productivity'...and often things that are touted as 'solutions', in reality, only exacerbate the problems. So it's no wonder people are a bit leery of the praises and claims of GE foods. Particularly when you take into consideration the way in which the technology has been (legally) "fast tracked" into mainstream food production the way it has been. With "science" that amounts to little more than a junk promotional material coming from university departments who's Heads, Chairs, Co-chairs, donors etc...are employed by the very same company(ies) selling whatever 'GE product' or technology. Here is a really nice explanation of how that part works http://www.scribd.com/doc/91259206/Public-Research-Private-Gain

I've posted that link before, but there it is again. It's a very well written look at land grant universities, how they came to be and where they are today.

Then...laws and regulatory approvals are meted out based on that "scientific research". Government approvals are then handed out by individuals who once again, work for same very company(ies) that funded the "science"...and stands to sell 'the product'. The same "revolving door employee" trick that Big Oil used to relieve itself of 'regulatory hassles' back when King George II was president. (Why re-invent the wheel eh)?

It's no wonder many people at this point have the sneaking suspicion that "something might be rotten in Denmark"... 

And GMO's have thus far, failed to live up to what was promised by the folks pushing them. i.e cheaper food, less pesticide use, much better yields, less environmental impact bladiddyblabla...and my personal favorite, the one that the pro-GMO 'taking heads' like to bring up... often before some bit of legislation is suppose to barrel it's way through...feeding the hungry poor. (Usually with low quality, low nutritional value grains... What you didn't think that poor tribesman was gonna get a taste of a bit of smoked GE salmon in terriaki sauce did 'ya? Maybe put some on a plane with Sally Struther's hmm)?

As to Whole Foods...I think they made the decision to totally sell out and er... um..."co-exist" with Monsanto well over a year ago.

Chalk one more up with the strategists at Monsanto...I mean, you almost gotta respect 'em - even only if in an 'evil villain-y sort of way, they've come up with a good game plan and there sticking to it. Co-opting 'the opposition' comes as no surprise given their history. I mean Whole Foods is (was) only the single largest commercial distribution outlets for Organic products in America...And at one time, now 'in a galaxy far, far away' were looked at by some, as offering an alternative, again, on a commercial scale. It was just bound to happen...

Which is all the more reason that growing your own healthy food is still one of the most "revolutionary" (as Gina Cavaliero so eloquently put it) things you can do, even if it's just a small victory garden on a suburban plot. Supporting small farmers  who sell healthy, even if not government big 'O' certified (AP or otherwise), locally grown foods also seems like a very good idea. Whether that be through a CSA program, the local farmers market, direct buying at the farm...whatever. 

There are many potential strategies that are meant to deal with urban and peri-urban food demands that do not need to rely on trans-genetic technology...Some of those strategies exist on a personal level, a level that each of us as individuals can do something about. But they are choices and decisions that may (*gasp*) involve changing our tastes and taking personal responsibility for some of our purchasing choices.

For instance...

..."One thing is certain: if the world continues to eat more and more seafood, that fish will have to come from aquaculture, because fisheries simply can’t support—sustainably—the global appetite for seafood. (Aquaculture already produces nearly half of the total weight of fish eaten worldwide.) But while GM salmon—and the engineering of other species for food—might help alleviate some of the pressure on wild fish, the debate misses the point. We’ve made an elemental mistake with aquaculture, choosing to farm the fish that we’re used to catching and eating—like salmon or bass or cod—even though these species haven’t taken very well to becoming our chickens of the sea. Even though the salmon farming industry has managed to improve its efficiency, farmed salmon still need about 1 lb. of wild fish for feed per 1 lb. of salmon—so aquaculture becomes another cause behind the long emptying of the sea. The proportion is even worse for species like bluefin tuna, which are just beginning to be farmed. And even a more efficient GM salmon will do nothing to change the environmental problems associated with salmon farming.

The problem is the fish. As Paul Greenberg puts it in his great book Four Fish, we may be raising the wrong species. Instead of carnivores like salmon or tuna, we should be farming species that are naturally better adapted to aquaculture—like the vegetarian species tilapia, or arctic char, ...which be raised in close quarters, reducing the impact on the surrounding environment. Instead of trying to change the fish to our tastes, maybe we should try changing our tastes to fit the fish..".



Read more: http://science.time.com/2010/09/21/food-why-the-debate-over-gm-salm...

BenHehle Beamz said:

By 2050, the world’s population will reach 9.1 billion people, (FAO) food and feed production need to increase by 70 percent to ensure the demand of people's food. (FAO). Land has to be more productive and more production area is required. In 2050, 70 percent of world’s population will live in urban areas (FAO).

Just some facts, to think about. What will be the solution for that? I dont know yet

It's a good answer, like it or not.  

Bob Terrell said:

Some are not going to like my answer,  the solution is not to increase our food production by 70% , which I do not believe can be done because of several reasons, but to reduce the population.
 

Wow! Thanks George...I just now caught that. "Population reduction"...My, now this is getting interesting...

I don't suppose by any chance that white, preferably anglo saxon, folks will get to decide how to go about both doin' the 'reducing'...and what particular populations will have to be "reduced" do 'ya? 

If not, then that option might not all of a sudden be so "attractive" 

Corn Syrup!?  I think you have identified the true bain of humans.  The government has subsidized corn production for generations,  making it widely used, incredibly profitable, and falsely cheap to use as an ingredient. It is no wonder that our technological resources have gone to streamline the corn industry, that's where the profit is, even if it is an obese bubble leaning on a huge government crutch. Imagine if CSA organizations had a little of that political bacon fat. Oh what a perfect world?

Vlad, I think that the buy local/ grow your own solution is a very important change that we need to make globally.  But, to rely on millions of lazy individuals to make fundamental changes in the way they live, that requires more money and individual energy, sounds somewhat utopian and unrealistic, irregardless of how loud we shout from our soapboxes.  So, we need to have more solutions than "take care of yourself and your world", because the majority of people are leaches that don't give a shit about themselves or our world.  We need to rely on advances in technology to help us take care of the average human(waste of oxygen), that is reproducing with reckless abandoned, and requiring more and more with each subsequent generation. There are two solutions.either, find a way to streamline our production systems or hope for an apocalyptic event that will reduce the population by %75.  Either way the continued use of GE will help us get there.

There are all sorts of problems with the way GE tech is currently being utilized, that is why it is important for the good conscientious people like our selves and Whole Foods to be part of the advance in this technology rather than to shun it.

I agree shouting on ones soapbox will not get anyone to listen but if we were to whisper you will find that people tend to listen harder.  

Roger Baldwin said:

Corn Syrup!?  I think you have identified the true bain of humans.  The government has subsidized corn production for generations,  making it widely used, incredibly profitable, and falsely cheap to use as an ingredient. It is no wonder that our technological resources have gone to streamline the corn industry, that's where the profit is, even if it is an obese bubble leaning on a huge government crutch. Imagine if CSA organizations had a little of that political bacon fat. Oh what a perfect world?

Vlad, I think that the buy local/ grow your own solution is a very important change that we need to make globally.  But, to rely on millions of lazy individuals to make fundamental changes in the way they live, that requires more money and individual energy, sounds somewhat utopian and unrealistic, irregardless of how loud we shout from our soapboxes.  So, we need to have more solutions than "take care of yourself and your world", because the majority of people are leaches that don't give a shit about themselves or our world.  We need to rely on advances in technology to help us take care of the average human(waste of oxygen), that is reproducing with reckless abandoned, and requiring more and more with each subsequent generation. There are two solutions.either, find a way to streamline our production systems or hope for an apocalyptic event that will reduce the population by %75.  Either way the continued use of GE will help us get there.

There are all sorts of problems with the way GE tech is currently being utilized, that is why it is important for the good conscientious people like our selves and Whole Foods to be part of the advance in this technology rather than to shun it.

No Vlad, another thing some people don't like, Planned Parenthood.  Sure, there is money to be made with a bigger population, but we don't want to spend money educating the people we already have, or maintaining the necessary infrastructure, etc.  

No, we have other priorities, sacred cows we pour money into - This is the U.S., I speak of, my country that I love but one that has enough people already, thank you.

Our obese population may continue to grow but then again nature may eventually regulate it in some unforeseen manner.  Just think of our industrial meat supply, where animals are packed tightly and fed GMO foods, hormones and antibiotics.  Who knows what we may be culturing in such environments?  The things we already know about are bad enough.  Diabetes is being referred to as a national epidemic and it is entirely due to the food supply.

Grow your own food, those who can and I pity those who can't.


Vlad Jovanovic said:

Wow! Thanks George...I just now caught that. "Population reduction"...My, now this is getting interesting...

I don't suppose by any chance that white, preferably anglo saxon, folks will get to decide how to go about both doin' the 'reducing'...and what particular populations will have to be "reduced" do 'ya? 

If not, then that option might not all of a sudden be so "attractive" 



Roger Baldwin said:

There are all sorts of problems with the way GE tech is currently being utilized, that is why it is important for the good conscientious people like our selves and Whole Foods to be part of the advance in this technology rather than to shun it.


While I agree with the first 15 words...the rest...well, I guess we just don't see eye to eye on the matter and will have to 'agree to disagree'... but...

..."...But, to rely on millions of lazy individuals to make fundamental changes in the way they live, that requires more money and individual energy, sounds somewhat utopian and unrealistic...We need to rely on advances in technology to help us take care of the average human(waste of oxygen), that is reproducing with reckless abandoned, and requiring more and more with each subsequent generation. There are two solutions.either, find a way to streamline our production systems or hope for an apocalyptic event that will reduce the population by %75.  Either way the continued use of GE will help us get there...because the majority of people are leaches that don't give a shit about themselves or our world..."


Holy Hell Roger! If that's the case I do vote for extermination!...Did you really just equate the larger portion of humanity to a bunch of lazy parasitic sods who are just using up valuable resources? If that is the case...then I vote we commence 'the cleansing' using a per capita model...meaning those urban centers existing in nations that are usurping a disproportionate amount of this planets resources and engaging in the most ridiculous models of 'conspicuous consumption' be the first to be first to go...


Thank you Nostradamus...hope all those Californians learn to swim...see 'ya down in Arizona bay...goodbye Eastern seaboard...

My Sweet Satan...and here I thought I was an extreme kinda guy...You really believe that "the majority of people are leaches that don't give a shit about themselves or our world..." ...I mean...you're entitled to think that and everything...and looking at things from a given particular perspective it may be understandable...perhaps valid even...again, looking at things from a particular and specific perspective...but "holy zombie apocalypse batman"...don't you then take a breather, step back and start to think of solutions that don't entail mass exterminations of the human species? I mean, fucking christ on a crutch, we're not quite to that point yet already, are we...? Umm...I'm gonna get off my soapbox now... and go hide in some 'far away safe place' like Iran...or North Korea :)

Btw...not to be a dick or nit pick about grammar or anything... but you should edit the title of this post to change the word "except" to "accept", as it is a bit misleading the way you have it written...not that that kind of mistake will get you "tossed into the ovens" or anything...just sayin'...

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Sylvia Bernstein.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service