Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How often do we get droughts..every year ?
Corn is a dryland crop to begin with. So you have an off year every now and then. That is what grain storage is for.
But we've emptied the storage bins and 60% of what is harvested has gone to ethanol production.
So we need GM corn to come in and save us from our bad decisions ?
I don't argue that our ethanol policy is one of the stupider things mandated by our government. Common sense and consequences need to be considered, not just pandering to the environmental movement.
In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats...
Mind you, Monsanto was the maker of agent orange and DDT a toxic chemical pesticide which the company claimed to be perfectly safe for human consumption. Except DDT was banned by the US govt in 1972.
You still want to try their corn?
Sure. DDT SAVED countless lives due to suppression of malaria causing mosquetos in the past. So Monsanto makes both pesticides and seed crops? Different products.
Want a new tin foil hat? Just in case the old one wears out?
I don't argue that our ethanol policy is one of the stupider things mandated by our government. Common sense and consequences need to be considered, not just pandering to the environmental movement.
Sure. DDT SAVED countless lives due to suppression of malaria causing mosquetos in the past. So Monsanto makes both pesticides and seed crops? Different products.
Want a new tin foil hat? Just in case the old one wears out?
DDT killed as many as it saved.
You're just replacing one poison (malaria) with another (DDT, which remains in the environment for decades).
There are better, safer ways of getting rid of malaria than relying on toxic chemicals.
Draining the swamps where mosquitoes breed, for example.
GM corn is like the new DDT. It ought to be banned like DDT was.
The poster I replied to used the term "countries" with no sources and people are expected to believe him/her/it?
As usual people can't read, from the source you posted...
Thats one source and one country. Many other examples can be found, if you are curious about a subject do some research. You can't always expect others to do everything for you. If you don't want to exert the time and energy to do some research, than it's not important to you. If that's the case, why are you even posting on this subject?
Are any of you aware that seeds are suppose to grow into plants and repoduce and create more seeds? Well Mosanto has created seeds that do not and you will have to buy them every year instead of once in awhile. This in the long run will make them a very powerful player in the world food markets if other countires did not wise up to what they were trying to do. People do you really think think that they are in the business for humanitarin purposes? They are here to make money! Hell Rummy has a great deal invested into this company.
Any company that tries to monopolize food sources, especially for one so integral to so many of our food supplies, can only be a danger. People should watch the documentary Food, Inc. if you think a company like Monsanto is doing anything in anyone's best interest.
OMG! Corn that survives drought....how terrible! The sky is falling...
You should educate yourself. To give you an idea of what kind of company Monsanto is, let's say you have a field that plants Monsanto's corn variety while an adjacent farm does not. Now, let's say some of Monsanto's corn, through animal activity or weather, ends up going into the adjacent farm, with the owner of the latter farm being completely oblivious to this because, after all, you can't control nature. Monsanto will actively sue the farmer of the latter farm because of this. What kind of company does that?
Monsanto is a party to a least dozens of Superfund sites. Even Monsanto's own people admit they don't give a crap about people or the safety of their products.
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."
You should educate yourself. To give you an idea of what kind of company Monsanto is, let's say you have a field that plants Monsanto's corn variety while an adjacent farm does not. Now, let's say some of Monsanto's corn, through animal activity or weather, ends up going into the adjacent farm, with the owner of the latter farm being completely oblivious to this because, after all, you can't control nature. Monsanto will actively sue the farmer of the latter farm because of this. What kind of company does that?
Monsanto is a party to a least dozens of Superfund sites. Even Monsanto's own people admit they don't give a crap about people or the safety of their products.
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."
Perhaps you need to educate yourself and not just regurigate talking points. Here is a bit more about the agreement that farmers sign when buying specific GM seeds:
Monsanto can legally patent crops like Roundup Ready soybeans because the
plants are basically creations of the company -- there is no way they could
possibly exist naturally. They contain genes from bacteria or other
organisms spliced together in laboratories. The engineered beans are immune
to Monsanto's Roundup pesticide, which kills almost everything that is green.
When farmers buy the seed, they have to sign a contract that outlines the rules of use. For example, they are not allowed to save any of the seed from their crop to plant the next season. Saving seed is a common practice
used for thousands of years, but Monsanto forbids it, requiring farmers to
buy new seed from the company every year.
Monsanto accuses the Mayfields of saving and replanting 800 bushels of
Roundup Ready beans as well as selling some of the seed illegally.
....
Suing farmers who violate contracts is a way to keep everyone honest,
Hurley said. Any money Monsanto wins is donated to the American Farm Bureau
to pay for scholarships, he said, so the company isn't looking to profit.
"We would seek to level the playing field. What a lot of farmers have told
us is that they want a level playing field," he said.
Monsanto spends millions, if not billions, developing a superior product. They make their living by selling these products (seeds). In order to purchase these products, farmers have to agree not to save the seeds and use them in future years. This is comparable to software piracy or any other theft of intellectual property. The lawsuits are over cases where farmers violate these contracts.
They are NOT suing farmers because they have a few plants from seeds that blew/spread into their property. They are suing those that are harvesting, utililizing and reproducing their seeds, without paying for them.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 12-28-2011 at 03:07 PM..
I don't argue that our ethanol policy is one of the stupider things mandated by our government. Common sense and consequences need to be considered, not just pandering to the environmental movement.
Sure. DDT SAVED countless lives due to suppression of malaria causing mosquetos in the past. So Monsanto makes both pesticides and seed crops? Different products.
Want a new tin foil hat? Just in case the old one wears out?
regarding the ethanol policy, i see that this year they are changing the rules again for ethanol in the gas:
The Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday approved new E15 labels for use in cars and light trucks produced since 2001. E15 is a blend of ethanol and gasoline that's 15 percent ethanol and gasoline. Previously, E10 was the highest ethanol/gasoline blend approved for car and light truck use. Automakers are none too happy with the EPA's decision.
The new orange and black label warns consumers that the gasoline they're purchasing is an E15 blend that's only approved for vehicles from 2001 and newer, and flex-fuel vehicles that have the capability of running on E85. The label also warns against E15 use in old vehicles (apparently any non-E85-approved vehicle made prior to 2001), boats and gas-powered equipment like lawnmowers and weed whackers. According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which is a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Volkswagen and six other manufacturers, the EPA's new E15 label is missing a fairly significant warning.
"We see the final rule fails to require that service station pumps contain a warning label directing consumers to check their owner's manual to determine the appropriate fuel for specific vehicles," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the alliance to The Detroit News. "This is a significant and unfortunate omission."
Many automakers oppose the EPA's ruling to allow E15 to be used in 2001 and newer vehicles and already they have twice challenged it. Automakers have been opposing the EPA's approval of E15 because they say not all of their vehicles will run properly on the blend and because it potentially can void a vehicles warranty. Also, automakers argue that making an E15 blend available will cause an increase in misfueling, resulting in voided warranties, fuel system damage and additional greenhouse gases.
regarding the ethanol policy, i see that this year they are changing the rules again for ethanol in the gas:
The Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday approved new E15 labels for use in cars and light trucks produced since 2001. E15 is a blend of ethanol and gasoline that's 15 percent ethanol and gasoline. Previously, E10 was the highest ethanol/gasoline blend approved for car and light truck use. Automakers are none too happy with the EPA's decision.
The new orange and black label warns consumers that the gasoline they're purchasing is an E15 blend that's only approved for vehicles from 2001 and newer, and flex-fuel vehicles that have the capability of running on E85. The label also warns against E15 use in old vehicles (apparently any non-E85-approved vehicle made prior to 2001), boats and gas-powered equipment like lawnmowers and weed whackers. According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which is a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Volkswagen and six other manufacturers, the EPA's new E15 label is missing a fairly significant warning.
"We see the final rule fails to require that service station pumps contain a warning label directing consumers to check their owner's manual to determine the appropriate fuel for specific vehicles," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the alliance to The Detroit News. "This is a significant and unfortunate omission."
Many automakers oppose the EPA's ruling to allow E15 to be used in 2001 and newer vehicles and already they have twice challenged it. Automakers have been opposing the EPA's approval of E15 because they say not all of their vehicles will run properly on the blend and because it potentially can void a vehicles warranty. Also, automakers argue that making an E15 blend available will cause an increase in misfueling, resulting in voided warranties, fuel system damage and additional greenhouse gases.
it's almost like some of the agencies work against each other.
Ethanol is a disaster for fuel use in this country. It will be interesting to see if producers are sued for engine damage resulting from E15 use. E10 is bad enough, it seperates and produces "gum" or residue that plugs fuel systems. Small engine repair shops are making a killing replacing/cleaning carbs plugged by this garbage. The contaminated fuel is especially hard on 2-stroke engines that are especially sensitive to fuel/air mixtures. Snowmobiles, chainsaws and outboard motors have been destroyed by this stuff.
I try to treat any E-10 fuel with Sta-bil or Sea Foam if it's going to sit for any time.
The foolish aspect is that while E10 displaces 10% of the gasoline in such fuel, it results in considerably poorer fuel economy. Not only does ethonal contain less energy per gallon than gas, it burns cooler, reducing the energy extracted from the remaining fuel.
Fuel pumps selling E10 or E15 should be mandated to display large signs saying use of this fuel may cause severe engine damage and will reduce your fuel economy.
I agree with that. Ethanol is bad news. Nothing good about it at all. But at least the gas stations that sell it are required to label their pumps so you know you're getting ethanol added to your gasoline. Which is helpful because labeling makes it easy to avoid.
Unlike GM frankenfoods which do not require labeling in the US, though its required by law in the EU. This time its not your car at stake its your health. You're putting that stuff into your body but Mr. Obama doesn't want you to know you're serving as an involuntary live guinea pig for his boss Monsanto the proud maker of DDT and agent orange.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
