Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: quietmule on January 30, 2011, 12:43:37 am
-
I've been trying to ignore the implications of what GM alfalfa's approval will mean for grass-fed organic meat, but when I read this paragraph it hit me that the days of eating non GM contaminated raw paleo (at least in America) are going to be over relatively soon.
"Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy cows and one of the principle foods for beef cows, especially grass-fed cattle. Alfalfa is a perennial, easily lasting five years once planted. And it's bee-pollinated, which means each year, every non-GE alfalfa plant within five miles of every GE alfalfa plant will likely be contaminated by GE genes." ( http://www.alternet.org/food/149716/why_you_can_now_kiss_organic_beef%2C_dairy_and_many_vegetables_goodbye/ (http://www.alternet.org/food/149716/why_you_can_now_kiss_organic_beef%2C_dairy_and_many_vegetables_goodbye/) )
I guess we all have to get cancer someday. ;)
There are some positives to it, though. We won't have have to avoid eating GM foods when going out with friends because it won't matter anymore.
-
devils plan works im telling you there gona be a war soon
Im just wondering when its gona happen 2012 or we have to wait more
-
I love conspiracy theories but the 2012 notion is even worse than most!
I don't think we need to worry re GM issues either. For one thing, Monsanto etc. generally make sure to make their seeds unable to keep on breeding so as to ensure that the farmers have to keep buying more seeds, and to prevent other farmers benefitting from cross-pollination of their crops. Plus, any cross-pollination will be minor and likely cancelled out.
-
GM alfalfa and other potential GM grasses are different than soybeans and whatnot because they are perrenial, and since its a grass theres no way it can be contained sufficiently. There's a lot of reason to believe this is going to cause massive DNA pollution. Monsanto wants farms to be contaminated, to sue them and shut them down. Its what they've been doing for years.
-
How is this the end of grass fed meat?
-
How is this the end of grass fed meat?
hehe, I had some rant earlier that I never posted saying basically that. Its certainly an issue to be upset about on some level, I guess. I just don't understand the motivation behind all these kinds of posts. The absolute worse case scenario will cause me to lose perhaps one wink of sleep tonight.
-
Yea it has the propensity to suck, but we are still far better off than most people. We are not going to drop dead because an animal ate a couple GMO grasses, probably minuscule compared to the natural grass they would be eating, even if it does happen.
I have said it before and will say it again... apathetic eaters will not exist in 100 years, failure to produce children is an epidemic right now and every other disease is on the rise..
"Evolve or die" E. Tolle
-
The alfalfa is designed to better withstand the toxic herbicides. This would be a problem for conventional meat eaters since more chemicals would probably end up in the meat than before. I will be firmly against GMOs until the day I die probably, but this particular event is not the end of the world especially for us.
-
If GMO alfalfa needs pesticide to grow.. would that not mean it would die/ be out grown by regular alfalfa, on non poison fields?
-
The GMO alfalfa does not need the pesticide to grow. It can resist being harmed by herbicide which makes yields bigger. If there is genetic pollution, natural selection should not favor or unfavor its existence. Since the gene has a neutral effect on fitness we shouldn't see exploding populations of GMO alfalfa.
-
If there is genetic pollution, natural selection should not favor or unfavor its existence. Since the gene has a neutral effect on fitness we shouldn't see exploding populations of GMO alfalfa.
Maybe the huge amount of herbicides used on GMO's drift onto neighboring farms, causing the non-contaminated crops to perish?
http://www.truth-out.org/why-monsanto-always-wins67976 (http://www.truth-out.org/why-monsanto-always-wins67976)
"The USDA claims that the probability of gene flow between GE and non-GE alfalfa is very low, but the EIS does document several instances of transgenic contamination. About 200,000 acres of Roundup Ready alfalfa in 48 states were planted and harvested in 2005 and 2006 before the CFS lawsuit forced a ban. During this time, two alfalfa seed production firms, Dairyland and Cal/West Seeds, reported transgenic contamination in non-GE alfalfa seeds in California, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Dairyland reported contamination rates hovering around 1 percent, but in 2009, Cal/West reported that 12 percent of more than 200 alfalfa seed lots were contaminated with transgenes, and in 2008, all six of the firm's research lots tested positive for GE contamination. Preliminary data from 2009 showed that 30 percent of seed stock lots were contaminated."
It may not be the end of grass fed meat yet. grain feds certainly on its way out.
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages (http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages)
"This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare."
"It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas."
"The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%."
-
How is this the end of grass fed meat?
I am as confused as you are, sir.
I am not worried at all about GM crops. They still have to compete in nature like other crops. The rules haven't changed. Humans have been "playing God" for millennia. The same arguments against GMO apply to agriculture in general.
-
First off, a field being used for cattle forage ideally should have between 100+ varieties of grasses. So alfalfa should only comprise a percentage of that. Not that that is the reality of things, but that is the ideal. Before agriculture came along, a single prairie might hold 1000+ varieties of forage. The animals recognize these and elect them based on their dietary needs and/or preference.
Second, if genes like the terminator get out of control, just like that you could lose an entire staple crop (which may not be a bad thing in the cases of corn and soybean!) from the face of the earth. Since humans rely heavily on grains to feed the 7 billion+ people on the planet, obviously that may be the quick way to overpopulation reduction. Still, not a nice image of the future, not one I'd want my baby brother and sister growing up in. We've already seen wild populations of alfalfa contaminated with GMO genes in places like montana. The point is that when it comes to these types of things, better safe than sorry, better not to assume these bastard genetics are innocent until proven guilty. They should be guilty until proven innocent.
Third, the point I see a lot of people missing here is that western society is based on property rights, without that everything else crumbles. GMO's are a clear infringement on the property rights of others. Since the pollen from the source GMO's contaminate non GMO crops so that they have the unwanted GMO genes in the next generation of seed, the seed is worthless to the non GMO farmer, in other words his/her property rights are being infringed by companies like monsanto. And then in the very twisted form of these souless companies, they turn around and sue the hell out of the farmer who wound up planting bastardized crops the next year. It should be the farmer suing MOnsanto for contamination of his pure genetics.
Fourth, GMO's do NOT increase yield, instead they protect from loss of yield. That is very distinct, and a very important distinction to make. GMO's are pushed as yield improving but in reality all they do is allow the "farmer" (aka ignorant, selfish, asshole, tool) to dowse the plants with poison without it dying, that is IT. Of course in even realer reality all it does is to make farmers dependent on monsanto each year for the seed that the farmer used to produce themself. Control the food and you control the population and all that...
Fifth, the concern is not as much the effect of GMO foods on the body, that is very selfish and narrow minded, the concern is in the aforementioned natural catastrophe and the ensuing starvation that would result from the sudden loss of one of the worlds staple crops (rice, corn, wheat, soy, etc). Also at risk is the philosophy of private property rights.
Sixth, F monsanto in the A.
-
Second, if genes like the terminator get out of control, just like that you could lose an entire staple crop (which may not be a bad thing in the cases of corn and soybean!) from the face of the earth. Since humans rely heavily on grains to feed the 7 billion+ people on the planet, obviously that may be the quick way to overpopulation reduction. Still, not a nice image of the future, not one I'd want my baby brother and sister growing up in. We've already seen wild populations of alfalfa contaminated with GMO genes in places like montana. The point is that when it comes to these types of things, better safe than sorry, better not to assume these bastard genetics are innocent until proven guilty. They should be guilty until proven innocent.
This makes no sense. Who is on trial here? Or are you just being rhetorical?
Third, the point I see a lot of people missing here is that western society is based on property rights, without that everything else crumbles. GMO's are a clear infringement on the property rights of others. Since the pollen from the source GMO's contaminate non GMO crops so that they have the unwanted GMO genes in the next generation of seed, the seed is worthless to the non GMO farmer, in other words his/her property rights are being infringed by companies like monsanto. And then in the very twisted form of these souless companies, they turn around and sue the hell out of the farmer who wound up planting bastardized crops the next year. It should be the farmer suing MOnsanto for contamination of his pure genetics.
Not so. The wind blows a certain way and insects carry pollen from one location to another, but such things have nothing to do with property rights. Nature is just doing what it has always done. GMO crops are subject to the same selective environmental pressures as every other crop, and face the same limitations, such as soil nutrients, air and light and water. If they over-breed they will have a big die off due to "starvation." Random mutations in competing crops will be selected for if they provide those crops with an advantage over the GMO crops. It's business as usual.
The problem is that Monsanto is suing based on non-existent rights. "Intellectual rights" are a sham, you cannot own ideas, except when the government steps in and begins pointing guns at people. Then suddenly ideas become very real.
Fourth, GMO's do NOT increase yield, instead they protect from loss of yield. That is very distinct, and a very important distinction to make. GMO's are pushed as yield improving but in reality all they do is allow the "farmer" (aka ignorant, selfish, asshole, tool) to dowse the plants with poison without it dying, that is IT. Of course in even realer reality all it does is to make farmers dependent on monsanto each year for the seed that the farmer used to produce themself. Control the food and you control the population and all that...
Protecting from loss of yield is no different than increasing yield. Both require an input of human labor, whether it is modifying the crops genetically or using various planting or farming techniques. The results are qualitatively the same in terms of labor input/yield, though likely quantitatively different. The attractiveness lies in the availability and ubiquity of industrial farming methods, and the willingness of banks to extend credit for such. But now we are getting to another issue entirely, that of the government monopolization of the money supply.
Fifth, the concern is not as much the effect of GMO foods on the body, that is very selfish and narrow minded, the concern is in the aforementioned natural catastrophe and the ensuing starvation that would result from the sudden loss of one of the worlds staple crops (rice, corn, wheat, soy, etc). Also at risk is the philosophy of private property rights.
The property rights issues have to do with so-called IP, not pollen being carried and blown around. The selfishness of individuals is precisely what brings about change in the practices of businesses, so if GMO is harmful it is the selfishness of individuals that will ultimately make GMO crops an unprofitable product.
Sudden loss of a staple crop is complete conjecture. I am not saying it can't happen, we have historic precedent such as the Irish Potato Famine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine
But again, we have nature at work. Monsanto is only trying to make a product that individuals (farmers, consumers of their products) want. Every one of us can reject their product.
Sixth, F monsanto in the A.
Not sure where you were going with this...
-
You are of course entitled to your opinion M, but I stand by what I've said. A sound theory of property rights protects against undue or excessive infringement by another.
And what is difficult about 'F monsanto in the A'? haha translation: I hope their company and all their work burns to the ground, they are evil in the truest sense of the word, bad, terrible, awful, abomination....all words that accurately describe the activity and character of monsanto.
-
You are of course entitled to your opinion M, but I stand by what I've said. A sound theory of property rights protects against undue or excessive infringement by another.
And what is difficult about 'F monsanto in the A'? haha translation: I hope their company and all their work burns to the ground, they are evil in the truest sense of the word, bad, terrible, awful, abomination....all words that accurately describe the activity and character of monsanto.
I am in favor of and support property rights, and yes I agree that Monsanto is evil, so I do not see any disagreement there. 8)
-
GM is dangerous because it's been shown to cause serious health problems(why it's still legal in our food sources I'd like to know).
GM crops spread.
How are you going to find & eliminate all GM crops that have contaminated non-GM species? You can't...
Thus GM crops are very very dangerous.
Once they contaminate wild species there is no more wild paleo. The only guaranteed "paleo" would be grown/bred in enclosed structures.
All farmer's can do is test their own crops for contamination. If they're contaminated the farmer is fucked.
GMO's are dangerous. Monsanto is evil. This evil is driven by money.
-
I hate to say it but I just realized the implications of the loss of the world's staple crops if the terminator gene were to get out. It would bring that population reduction that is badly needed on this planet...I think. If we can't live, each one of us consuming our ideal diet, then we've overshot our carrying capacity and biologically speaking our numbers need to be brought back down. I don't know if we've reached that point, but if the answer to "Can we grow enough pastured animals to feed the whole world" is 'no' then that is the case.
Obviously we don't know what will happen because it's all new to everyone, it's never been tried before, but that scenario is not unreasonable.
-
terminator gene doesn't automatically kill crops, it has to be activated http://www.nd.edu/~chem191/f2.html
-
huh?
I'm saying what happens if the gene gets out of control and sterilizes these staple crops so they produce nonviable seed.
-
huh?
I'm saying what happens if the gene gets out of control and sterilizes these staple crops so they produce nonviable seed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ...supposedly.