Archive for the ‘food’ Category

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry


Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry as seen the Telegraph.co.uk on 23 May 2012

The father of the Green Revolution would have supported the GM wheat scientists at Rothamsted, argues Prof Malcolm Elliot.

Genetically modified crops have the potential to save lives around the world

Genetically modified crops have the potential to save lives around the world Photo: ALAMY

Original article posted by Prof Malcolm Elliot 12:24PM BST 23 May 2012. He writes:

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote in his book The Population Bomb that “mass starvation” due to “burgeoning population growth” was inevitable. “It is now too late to take action” to avoid hundreds of millions of deaths in developing countries, he declared, more than 40 years ago. Nothing could be done to stop all those people dying from hunger, because there were simply too many mouths to feed. It was already game over.

Indeed Ehlich used a flawed model to make his prediction.  Unfortunately, he did not use the ubiquitous logistic curve which held true. Population should peak and level off as population density peaks and resources remained constant or decline. Everything else equal, this would have been true with no intervention.  In fact, it might be argued that any intervention that caused the population to continue upward instead of leveling off, like a green revolution, is responsible for the current population issues and has killed more than it has saved.

That Ehrlich was wrong, both morally and factually, was largely down to the efforts of one man. Norman Borlaug was as concerned about population growth as Ehrlich, but instead of making doom-laden prophecies about mass death, he decided that the best course of action to stop people starving would be to help them produce more food. Now famous as the father of the Green Revolution, he toiled for years to breed high-yielding cereal crops and other innovations which enabled poor countries to dramatically increase agricultural productivity.

Some might be interested in this podcast:  Exposing the Green Revolution: Myths, Realities, and Community Responses. 

The task of feeding the world is only going to get harder in years to come. By 2050 the world’s population will approach 10 billion, and combined environmental crises mean we must produce much more food on less land with less water, fewer agrochemicals and less fossil fuel, while still maintaining biodiversity. At the same time, farming must adapt to changing climate zones and weather patterns. To do all this we must heed Borlaug’s plea to deploy the full range of cutting-edge techniques to produce higher yielding, higher quality, lower input, lower environmental impact crops. As founding director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security, I can testify to the urgency of this challenge.

I see the same fallacious argument here that was originally argued against.  The only difference here between a doomsayer and a doomsayer with a solution that puts money and control of food in fewer and fewer hands, is that the inevitable doom predicted by the former is replaced by the inevitable doom hidden by the latter.  I can forgive the former of blindness, the latter is unforgivable.

Among the techniques that Borlaug highlighted were gene manipulation approaches that promise to deliver results faster and more precisely than the classical crop breeding techniques. Dr Clive James, Borlaug’s deputy director at his wheat and maize research centre in Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s, today reports that the 94-fold increase from 4.2 million acres in 1996 to 395 million acres in 2011 makes GM crops the fastest-adopted crop technology in recent history. During the period from 1996 to 2011, millions of farmers in 29 countries worldwide chose to plant and replant an accumulated acreage of 5.9 billion acres – a testimony to the fact that such crops deliver sustainable and substantial socioeconomic and environmental benefits.

Yet this progress has not been smooth. Norman Borlaug was forced to spend his dying years campaigning to protect agricultural innovations like GM from being derailed by activists who opposed all genetic engineering for ideological reasons, or were simply against modern biotechnology on principle. As Borlaug warned in 2004, success for the anti-GM lobby could be catastrophic: “If the naysayers do manage to stop agricultural biotechnology, they might actually precipitate the famines and the crisis of global biodiversity they have been predicting for nearly 40 years.”

The idea that scientists invested in the idea of patenting corporate scientific technology lack any ideological bias would be laughable if it was not so sad and dangerous. His line of argument boarders on propaganda.

This warning seems particularly prescient right now, as anti-GM activists threaten to destroy publicly funded research on wheat at the Rothamsted Institute here in the UK. A group called “Take the Flour Back” has pledged to destroy the entire trial site next Sunday, while on Sunday a lone activist broke into the experimental plots and caused damage before being arrested by police. The threatened “decontamination” by anti-GM zealots is supposedly in response to the danger of pollen from the wheat spreading to neighbouring fields – the activists seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that wheat is wind pollinated, whereas in fact it is self-pollinating, so little if any pollen ever leaves the plant. This sadly testifies to the extent of their understanding of agriculture.

Except you can read in GMO Compass this:

Normally, self-pollination occurs, which means wheat plants fertilize themselves with their own pollen before flowers even open. Nevertheless – depending on genotype and climatic conditions – cross-pollination with other wheat plants is possible. It usually occurs at a rate of approximately one to two percent. The rate can increase up to 9.7 percent when weather conditions are dry and warm.

Unlike, yes, but possible.

It is also important to understand what the scientists at Rothamsted are trying to do. Their experiments test the important ecological concept that natural behaviour-modifying pheromones – which repel sap-sucking insect pests called aphids – can be used to protect crops in the same way as they protect wild plants. The project is publicly funded and, if it is successful, the results will not be patented. Indeed, if successful the trial runs counter to the interests of the agrochemical industry because it may point the way to another type of plant protection which reduces insecticide use and the effects on non-target insects, and thereby benefit both biodiversity and productivity at the same time.However, the activists seem impervious to scientific reasoning, and have rejected an offer by the Rothamsted team for a public debate in front of an audience. Still, constant attacks by a tiny, ideologically motivated minority on work which could benefit the whole of humanity raise serious questions. Can a small, thuggish “action group” take a unilateral decision to suppress the advance of knowledge which might benefit everyone? If so, they will continue wilfully to deprive British farmers of the benefits of a technology that is already cherished by millions of producers worldwide, and limit the response of distinguished British scientists to the needs of the billion people who are already starving.
It is truly unfortunate that a small group of thuggish scientists can decide to steer research in a direction which is more driven by profit than people and that it can be marketed as free and open research that is to the serve man and knowledge. I suppose it could be a cookbook.

This attack on both scientists and the scientific method cannot go unopposed. It is incumbent upon everyone who values science and reason to stand up to vandalism and the destruction of legitimate scientific experiments. The attack on Rothamsted’s experimental plot must not go ahead.

Indeed we cannot stand for this attack on science. This attack on science by a handful of scientists with the hubris to push dogmatic, reductionist scientific advances in technology as representing the syne qua non of science is not acceptable. That something can be done, does not mean it should be done. Unintended consequences are more than just a small possibility.

Professor Malcolm Elliott is the founding director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security

Enough Said.
 Repost of original article and image under fair use provisions of local copyright law.
Advertisements

Has the FDA sold itself to the international pharmaceutical industry?


Has the FDA sold itself to the international pharmaceutical industry?.

We need to stop this outrage.

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer


A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer.

A Perfect Storm of GMOs, Chemicals and Cancer

By Rady Ananda in Food Freedom

Several books, including Seeds of Destruction and Corrupt to the Core,along with the film, The Idiot Cycle, lay out the framework for and evidence of a concerted effort to sicken and then treat humanity, while earning obscene profits. When we factor in other recent actions taken by transnational corporations and lawmakers, the conspiracy adopts a more ominous tone.

Authors William Engdahl and Shiv Chopra appear in Emmanuelle Schick Garcia’s powerful film, The Idiot Cycle: What you aren’t being told about cancer. Both writers provide detailed evidence of a corporate-government conspiracy to adulterate the food and water supply with dangerous substances linked to a host of illnesses. The Case Against Fluoride, a book using hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, provides more evidence. In David Gumpert’s Raw Milk Revolution, we get a peek at the US government’s war on the natural dairy industry.

Looking at six companies, Dow ChemicalBASFBayerDupontAstrazeneca(Syngenta), and MonsantoIdiot Cycle exposes corporate-government collusion in the release of carcinogenic chemicals, but also reveals how some of the same chemical companies then profit from treating cancer. It’s a cycle only an idiot would tolerate. Going further, much of the film then addresses genetically modified food and its potentially disastrous effect on health and the environment.

… snip…

Arpad Pusztai is no doubt the most famous scientist in the film. He first blew the whistle in 1998 on the hazards of GM crops, costing him his job at Rowett Research Institute in Scotland. Having studied biotechnology for 35 years, Pusztai had well earned the title as the world’s leading expert in this highly specialized field. In 1995, he won a three-year, $1.5 million contract from the UK government to establish a testing methodology for regulators when assessing the safety of GM crops.

…snip…

The next most famous scientist in the GM debate, arguably, is Eric-Gilles Seralini, whose groundbreaking studies we covered here. Seralini has also beenvilified by the biotech community. In The Idiot Cycle, he describes the battle that he endured to publicize Monsanto’s blood test results of rats that had eaten GM corn for three months. Once the information was made public, independent scientists could then review Monsanto’s “safe” finding.

… snip…

Canada Health whistleblower Shiv Chopra, who authored Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower, explains the genesis of the misanthropic aims of these chemical companies and their government protectors. Beginning 50-60 years ago, he says in the film, chemicals began playing a major part in agriculture. “On the one hand, they’re contaminating people’s food, and they do damage. Then they come back with chemicals to treat them.”

…snip…

Though not in the film, another globally recognized scientist in the biotech world is Andres Carrasco. He and his team from Argentina and Paraguay found that Monsanto’s Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens. “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” he told GMWatch. In 2009, he wasthreatened at his lab, and in 2010 physically attacked by local police and the hired hands of a wealthy GM rice grower.

[more]

So when is the world going to start listening? Clearly, many of the pro-GMO backers can be grouped with the climate change deniers. They have no healthy skepticism of their own results, only of those as noted in above article.  

The crop scientists funded by the biotech industry have lots of data and results, but it appears that results only satifice the limited questions they are willing (allowed?) to ask. It appears that they are not falsifying any of the well framed questions being asked by those questioning their methodologies.  Their positive results appear to match well with the political, economic and cultural aims of those that can profit from the use of GMOs. Reality rarely leans right or left, only in the minds of those asking the questions does it do that.  

Is it any wonder that the we are starting to see a different picture emerge than the one presented over the last thirty years? Epigenetics works that way.  It is always a higher order pattern seen over generations. Those that looked beyond their test tubes thirty years ago would have been well aware of this potential result.  Will they be held liable?


Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW


The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.

via Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW.

The Monsanto Story


What a business plan.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The Monsanto Story – 2 of 2

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for The Monsanto Story – 2 of 2
Follow my videos on vodpod

Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil

by Ishtarmuz

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of a chemical company like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort. [more]

Poisoned Horses Excerpts and More #fluoride #phosphate #monsanto #FYW


Poisoned Horses Excerpts #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses Excerpts #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 1 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 1 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 2 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 2 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 3 of 3 #fluoride

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for Poisoned Horses with Cathy Justus 3 of 3 #fluoride
Follow my videos on vodpod

The phosphate/uranium mines and processing plants expose the environment to the most reactive substance known, namely, fluoride.  What can be done with this hard to dispose of toxic by-product? Monsanto’s (and Dupont, Dow and Bayer’s) answer was to put it in the water and have a huge public health campaign to promote it.  Later they will help develop pharmaceuticals to put it in. All is for the best in the best of all possible corporatist worlds.  Have the government sell your waste as a health product. But, never mind, that is just another questionable conspiracy theory  promoted by those fuzzy headed thinkers exposed to such neurotoxins. Isn’t plausible deniability great?

The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview

Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection 

The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry 


FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA

Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA
Follow my videos on vodpod

Fluoride Deception Mini-Documentary water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry

Vodpod videos no longer available.


A “New” Approach to Health


A “New” Approach to Health #food
Vodpod videos no longer available.

1st collector for A “New” Approach to Health
Follow my videos on vodpod

Let thy Food be thy Medicine and thy Medicine be thy Food – Hippocrates

%d bloggers like this: