Max Velocity Tactical



Your Ad Here - Email for Info

You Can Shop At Amazon and Help Support Emergency-Preps.com Without It Costing You One Thin Dime - Click Here to Learn How!

Author Topic: Poisoning the land...  (Read 542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Poisoning the land...
« on: February 25, 2013, 11:05:13 AM »
It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature...

              
US farmers flood fields with dangerous poison to fight Monsanto superweeds
 by Jon Rappoport

You’re a farmer. Season after season, you watch your fields being taken over by Monsanto superweeds, which are resistant to the herbicide Roundup.

What are you going to do? You’re locked in. You’re buying your GMO seeds from Monsanto, and the food crops that grow from those seeds are supposed to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup, so that’s what you spray on your crops.

But the weeds aren’t[sic]  resistant. They spread and they grow taller. They’re taking over.

So you, along with many, many other US farmers, go to a strategy called “burndown,” which is just as bad as it sounds. You use something a lot stronger than Roundup to kill those weeds: Paraquat, for example, which has been banned in 32 countries.

You drench your fields with it in the fall. You kill anything growing. And you drench the fields again in the spring, before you plant. Then, just as you’re going to plant, you hit the fields a third time with the poison.

This is in addition to all the sprayings with Roundup, which is toxic, too.

Then you harvest the crops and you sell them. And consumers eat the food along with all the poison. 

Tom Philpot, writing in Mother Jones (Feb.6), reports the alarming stats on the superweed takeover of US farmland. As of 2012, almost 50% of US farms had superweeds. In 2011, it was 34%. In Georgia, it’s now 92%.

The total acreage of US farmland with resistant superweeds jumped by 51% in 2012. In 2011, it was a 25% increase. That upward- percentage escalation is called a nightmare.

Well, so farmers are poisoning the hell out of their food and their fields. But with Monsanto’s super-duper GMO technology, the crop yields are still much bigger than they would be without the GMO seeds, right?

The Institute for Responsible Technology cites and quotes three reports on that score. 

An International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development study, signed on to by 58 governments and 400 scientists, states that GMO crop production is “highly variable,” and in some cases it has “declined.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, “Failure to Yield,” emphatically stated: “Commercial GE [genetically engineered] crops have made no inroads so far into raising the intrinsic or potential yields of any crop.”

A US Dept. of Agriculture report: “GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential. In fact, yield may even decrease…” 

Let’s summarize. Using Monsanto GMO technology to grow food crops results in massive poisoning of the farm land and the food. And increased crops yields are a fiction.

Nothing to see here, move along. Don’t worry, be happy. Stand back, technology at work. Progress is our most important product. Better living through chemistry. Ignorance is strength.


What would a president and his administration do to make sure the truth is overrun and squashed?

In addition to silencing the media, they would appoint a host of GMO insiders to key government posts, and they would bring to market as many new GMO crops as possible, to construct a fait accompli.

So let’s go to the scorecard and review the actions of Obama in his first term. 

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA: 

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research. 

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court. 

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants. 

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s detail the extraordinary parade of GMO crops that have skated through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.
And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

That’s how you control and squash the truth.
                   

Offline xtron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
  • Karma: +12/-0
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2013, 05:49:17 PM »
full disclosure...i am not a farmer, i grew up in a farming community, where my family and childhood friends still live and farm their family farms.  location, north west iowa..the heart of corn and soy bean farm land.

ONE...i do not turst anything that comes from mother jones...those folks have their tin foil hats pulled on too tight.

two...while i do not and would not use roundup on food crops, i think the whole GMO/roundup controversy is hugly over blown.

round up has been around and used for almost 30 years.  in the early 1980's a large number of broad leaf weeds had become resistant or immune to 2-4-D..the favored weed control for over 30 years.  because of this, roundup was developed to  replace 2-4-D for broadleaf control, and elimination of weeds 2-4-D did not control.
at first, extream care had to be used to prevent any roundup from getting on the crop plants, as even one drop would kill the plant.  things like rope wick applicators, and narrow band sprayers were developed.  then monsanto developed the infamose roundup ready crops, and regular wide band spraying was back in wide use....
now, after almost 30 years of wide spread use, a large number of weeds have become resistant, or immune to round up, the favored weed control.....wait...haven't we heard this some where before???  oh, yea...see above.

some researchers have discovered that the broad leaf weeds that are now resistant to roundup can be easily controled by........2-4-D.......go figure.

maybe the farming community needs to suck it up and take a giant step baclwards...to old fashoned 4 crop rotating.  if you grow corn in the same field for 5 years in a row, then beans for 5, then back to corn, is it any wonder the ground needs more and more expensive chemicals?? and at some point, there comes that state where no matter how much money you dump on the ground, yeilds cannot cover the cost.
however, if you did like granddad, and change crops every year, you greatly reduct the amount of pesticides, herbacides, and especially, fertalizer needed to be profitable.


Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 08:47:17 AM »
...while i do not and would not use roundup on food crops, i think the whole GMO/roundup controversy is hugly over blown....

I disagree.  If anything, the Monsanto/GMO debacle is understated and the public is being kept in the dark by a compliant and corrupt media.

From Farmer's Weekly:

..."Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the technology."

One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years before resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years.

...

One of the issues if farmers do move back towards non-GMs will be the availability of seed, he said, as around 87% of US farmers plant genetically modified seed.

The top performing countries by crop yield last year were in Asia, in particular China, where farmers do not use GM seed.

Offline Haverwilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2013, 01:54:46 PM »
My Father worked in agriculture at a university. He talked about visiting a farm specializing in raising ‘organic foods.’ What he found appalling was not the process of raising the food without artificial fertilizers and pesticides. It was what they did to the land first. It was totally sterilized by chemicals too strong for use on anything growing. Once the ground was totally sterile, then they could do their ‘green-thing.’ And raise produce for the ‘organic’ label.
Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem!

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2013, 01:49:17 AM »


Chemical sterilization prior to organic production?  I don't think so.  Let's go to some source documents from the bureaucrats who define what exactly is 'organic'...

International standards.

USDA discussion of organic transition.

Basically, the transition to organic is accomplished with several years of rotating cover crops and refraining from dumping more poison on the land.  Sterilization of the soil is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.

Offline Haverwilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2013, 10:05:58 AM »
ND, You may call my comment Bovine Excrement if you want. Things may definitely have changed/improved. . There are published industry standards, and then there are actual industry practices. I was quite impressed with how disgusted my father was with the preparations for taking a farm to a point where they would start producing 'organic' foods. Needless to say, I have remained suspicious of 'organic' produce since.
Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem!

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Poisoning the land...
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2013, 10:20:23 AM »
Well, bovine excrement is organic, but may not qualify as such if the animals are raised on hormones and pesticide-raised &/or GMO feed.

I don't mean to impugn your father's or your integrity, but your story is heresay based on visiting one farm how many years ago?  I can't find any references to the practice of chemical sterilization prior to organic certification...can you provide any?  I'll do a more thorough search later.

There are numerous reasons to doubt the current labeling of 'organic', but these are generally based upon the practices permitted in processing and packaging of organically-raised foods, not lingering poison from the transition to organic by the grower.  As with most purchasing from the marketplace, it's best to buy from 'trusted' sellers; trust gained by research and/or experience.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4778 Views
Last post October 07, 2010, 09:28:13 PM
by Paul
14 Replies
1427 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 09:21:48 PM
by four + four
2 Replies
721 Views
Last post August 10, 2011, 02:29:44 PM
by Bill Quick
3 Replies
660 Views
Last post August 11, 2011, 01:36:34 PM
by Drang
21 Replies
2141 Views
Last post October 12, 2012, 09:31:14 PM
by Drang


Your Ad Here - Email for Info
Help Support E-P.com
Even A Buck Makes A Difference!
Or Make Convenient Monthly
Donations By Selecting
A Payment Option
Payment Options