PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues When food supplies are short, things change...


Stewie
04-16-2008, 02:58 PM
Genetically modified corn is better than the alternative - no corn. An under-fed population becomes Haiti-ish in short order.

The global food crisis intensified on Tuesday as Kazakhstan, one of the world's biggest wheat exporters halted foreign sales and rice prices shot to a record high after Indonesia stopped its farmers from selling the grain abroad.
<o></o>
In another sign of turmoil, a big food company in Japan, Nihon Shokuhin Kako, said high corn prices had forced it to buy cheaper genetically modified corn for the first time, breaking a social, though not legal, taboo and signaling that opposition to GM foods could weaken in the face of record food prices.

<o></o>Meanwhile, fresh wheat export curbs in Kazakhstan, the world's fifth largest exporter, and the rice bans in Indonesia, threaten to trigger bans in other food exporting countries, which will now face much higher demand from importing countries.

<o></o>Hussein Allidina, at Morgan Stanley in New York, said pressure for export bans was likely to increase elsewhere as developing countries suffering high inflation tried to combat rising local prices by cutting back on exports of agriculture commodities.

<o></o>Indonesia – which joins Vietnam, Egypt, China, Cambodia and India in banning foreign sales – was expected to export the grain this year due to a bumper crop. Corn futures prices in Chicago last week hit a record $6.16 a bushel, up 30 per cent in the past three months.<o></o>

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=447770

Pitt Gorilla
04-16-2008, 03:02 PM
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/erotictophat/borat_nice.jpg

patteeu
04-16-2008, 03:32 PM
Is there any reason not to make a switch to cheaper, genetically modified corn?

Stewie
04-16-2008, 03:37 PM
Is there any reason not to make a switch to cheaper, genetically modified corn?

Not in my opinion. The fear-mongers will tell you it's poison.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:41 PM
Not in my opinion. The fear-mongers will tell you it's poison.

My only concern with using "monoculture" strains of grains and other foodstuffs is that it leaves us very vulnerable to a blight/disease wiping out all of a crop, instead of just parts of it here and there.

As for it being "Poison", I'm inclined to agree that is fear-mongering.

Stewie
04-16-2008, 03:47 PM
My only concern with using "monoculture" strains of grains and other foodstuffs is that it leaves us very vulnerable to a blight/disease wiping out all of a crop, instead of just parts of it here and there.

As for it being "Poison", I'm inclined to agree that is fear-mongering.

Monoculture? I'm not sure what you mean outside of the normal term.

Every seed producer has their own GM seeds that they've developed.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:54 PM
Monoculture? I'm not sure what you mean outside of the normal term.

Every seed producer has their own GM seeds that they've developed.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I don't have a problem with GM except that (I think) it contributes to everyone using the same strains for a food crop everywhere. If I'm mistaken about that, my apologies.

I can also see how GM seeds can be designed to be more disease/blight resistant, so it may be helping to deal with that potential problem. I freely admit I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other. Any information you have would be appreciated. If my concerns are misplaced, I certainly don't object to having them put in a better perspective.

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Is there any reason not to make a switch to cheaper, genetically modified corn?

you're kidding right?

Stewie
04-16-2008, 04:19 PM
you're kidding right?


You realize you eat GM corn, don't you?

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Sheesus, after reading this thread nevermind.

Stewie
04-16-2008, 04:23 PM
Sheesus, after reading this thread nevermind.

Live in your little California dream world.

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:23 PM
You realize you eat GM corn, don't you?


I realize I eat a lot of modified things that I am not aware of. The fact that they can sell it without having to specify it is modified is wrong.

Stewie
04-16-2008, 04:24 PM
I realize I eat a lot of modified things that I am not aware of. The fact that they can sell it without having to specify it is modified is wrong.

Ever eaten an apple? They are all modified. Do the growers need to tell you?

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Live in your little California dream world.

**** off asshole. All you idiots that want to cap on California can **** off. We are the 7th largest economy in the world. We represent 13% of the entire GDP of the entire country. We are the ****ing military douchebag. Yea kick them California dreamers out. While your at it make sure and take all your vaccines, eat your processed and genetically modified food and call us a bunch of hippies out here in the MMA capital of the world.

Stewie
04-16-2008, 04:39 PM
**** off asshole. All you idiots that want to cap on California can **** off. We are the 7th largest economy in the world. We represent 13% of the entire GDP of the entire country. We are the ****ing military douchebag. Yea kick them California dreamers out. While your at it make sure and take all your vaccines, eat your processed and genetically modified food and call us a bunch of hippies out here in the MMA capital of the world.

Nice comeback, Potsy.

Stewie
04-16-2008, 04:43 PM
**** off asshole. All you idiots that want to cap on California can **** off. We are the 7th largest economy in the world. We represent 13% of the entire GDP of the entire country. We are the ****ing military douchebag. Yea kick them California dreamers out. While your at it make sure and take all your vaccines, eat your processed and genetically modified food and call us a bunch of hippies out here in the MMA capital of the world.

How are your investments to the "rich" folk out there coming along? OTC derivatives? Credit Swaps? REITs? What a glorious time in CA!

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:44 PM
Ever eaten an apple? They are all modified. Do the growers need to tell you?

Thanks for the great enlightenment. I am very aware of Monsanto and how they have taken over how we grow shit these days. That being said every apple I have ever ate has not been genetically modified. I fully realize it is almost impossible these days to to truly know if what you are eating is but going organic should get you around this.

I am of the opinion that ****ing with the DNA of people or their food supply may not be a good thing. If that makes me stupid, a hippy or a California dreamer in your eyes then so be it.

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 04:45 PM
How are your investments to the "rich" folk out there coming along? OTC derivatives? Credit Swaps? REITs? What a glorious time in CA!

It's not the best of times but we are doing fine. Thanks for your concern.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2008, 05:18 PM
Not in my opinion. The fear-mongers will tell you it's poison.

I refuse to eat it and is another reason I buy organic.
No Frankenstein laboratory created food for me.
I'll stick with Mother Nature's goodness.

chiefforlife
04-16-2008, 05:19 PM
Im trying to follow here, someone asked if it is harmful to eat GM foods? I am curious as I really dont know?
The thread seemed to have turned a corner, people from California are clearly superior to the rest of the united states but what about this GM food?

BucEyedPea
04-16-2008, 05:20 PM
Im trying to follow here, someone asked if it is harmful to eat GM foods? I am curious as I really dont know?
The thread seemed to have turned a corner, people from California are clearly superior to the rest of the united states but what about this GM food?

General Motors is in the food business now. Haven't you heard? G:

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 05:27 PM
Im trying to follow here, someone asked if it is harmful to eat GM foods? I am curious as I really dont know?
The thread seemed to have turned a corner, people from California are clearly superior to the rest of the united states but what about this GM food?

Here is some information on this wonderful company Stewie supports that just came out this month in Vanity Fair. Read all 6 pages.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1

For the record I was on the defense when it came to getting capped on because I live in California, not the other way around.

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 05:34 PM
I refuse to eat it and is another reason I buy organic.
No Frankenstein laboratory created food for me.
I'll stick with Mother Nature's goodness.


You hippie. LMAO For the record 70 % of the food in your local grocer is GM food. Thanks god for the organic food supply out here.

NewChief
04-16-2008, 05:41 PM
You hippie. LMAO For the record 70 % of the food in your local grocer is GM food. Thanks god for the organic food supply out here.

If you haven't read the Omnivore's Dilemma by now, you need to. I'm wading through it right now. Super thoughtful, intelligent examination of our food supply. I was already pretty into buying local. Now I'm even more into it.

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 05:47 PM
If you haven't read the Omnivore's Dilemma by now, you need to. I'm wading through it right now. Super thoughtful, intelligent examination of our food supply. I was already pretty into buying local. Now I'm even more into it.

I haven't but I will, thanks. I do try to get my organics from local farmers. I wish I lived down in Santa Cruz county as the best supply is there but I get the mass majority at the local organic farmers market.

Logical
04-16-2008, 06:10 PM
Hey Stewie,

I am not afraid of eating genetically manipulated food. Hell I prefer irradiated food because I know it is going to last longer and be fresher. I still live in Ca, am I now off the smug hippie CA list?

banyon
04-16-2008, 06:28 PM
There is something kind of comical going on in this thread having two guys with babies in their avatars fighting with each other.

(Hint: try to picture the babies saying the posts)

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar46_4.gif

**** off asshole.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar8257_1.gif

Nice comeback, Potsy.

banyon
04-16-2008, 06:33 PM
Not in my opinion. The fear-mongers will tell you it's poison.

It's not as if there's any long term medical data on the subject to tell us anything, good or bad. I'm for taking a more cautious approach before we change everything.

patteeu
04-16-2008, 07:48 PM
**** off asshole. All you idiots that want to cap on California can **** off. We are the 7th largest economy in the world. We represent 13% of the entire GDP of the entire country. We are the ****ing military douchebag. Yea kick them California dreamers out. While your at it make sure and take all your vaccines, eat your processed and genetically modified food and call us a bunch of hippies out here in the MMA capital of the world.

Not to completely disagree with your pro-California argument, but I bet we get more of our military from the South than from California

BucEyedPea
04-16-2008, 07:58 PM
You hippie. LMAO For the record 70 % of the food in your local grocer is GM food. Thanks god for the organic food supply out here.

Yeah! I hear it's mostly corn and soy that are most affected particularly packaged. Good thing I can only eat some corn. Geez! Think I'll start a garden after meeting a former CIA guy telling me how bad things are gonna get with food.

Taco John
04-16-2008, 08:39 PM
I think it's stupid to be skeptical of people who are skeptical of ingesting genetically modified foods rather than being skeptical of the genetically modified food in the first place.

Bassackwards.

There is absolutely no long term data to tell us whether our bodies can metabolize genetically modified foods correctly. There's plenty of science that seems to indicate that genetically manipulating food causes complications in metabolizing and utilizing food for energy, and could lead to serious issues due to DNA transferrence that takes place in the gut:

In the summer of 2002, the British government sponsored the first-ever research on genetically modified food (GMOs) using human subjects. Researchers fed seven volunteers a single meal of soy burgers and soy milkshakes. The soy was genetically modified, as are 80 percent of the soybeans planted in the US.

The volunteers were selected because they had all previously had their lower intestines removed and were using a colostomy bag-the bag collected digested material after it passed through the small intestine. Researchers were surprised to discover that in every case, a large amount of genetically modified dna survived digestion and remained intact. (Biotech companies had insisted that dna is broken down.) Moreover, the modified gene from the soybean transferred into dna of bacteria inside the gut of three volunteers. Their intestinal bacteria, like gmo soybeans, contained a foreign gene that allowed the bacteria to survive a dose of weed killer. No one knows what the health consequences of this are.

link (http://tinyurl.com/6hluly)


I'm sure that there is plenty of paid for science that will say that all of this is blown out of proportion. But I'd personally put more trust in the folks who don't stand to make billions of dollars off of genetic manipulation.

Most definitely, I like the idea of it. It would be nice to be able to artificially scramble the genes of a plant to make it able to grow in the sand. But it does little good if the new species cannot be digested properly, or worse creates a sewer of infestation in the gut.

mikey23545
04-16-2008, 09:05 PM
I think it's stupid to be skeptical of people who aren't skeptical of the theory that George Bush blew up the WTC.

There is absolutely no long term data to tell us whether our bodies can exist without the protection of tin-foil hats.. There's plenty of science that seems to indicate that the CIA is putting mind-altering drugs in our cities water supplies, as well as genetically engineering food to be toxic to Ron Paul worshipers.

In the summer of 2002, the British government sponsored the first-ever research on genetically modified food (GMOs) using human subjects. <b>Researchers who were already biased towards the outcome they desired fed seven volunteers a single meal of soy burgers and soy milkshakes.</b> The soy was genetically modified, as are 80 percent of the soybeans planted in the US.

The volunteers were selected because they had all previously had their lower intestines removed and were using a colostomy bag-the bag collected digested material after it passed through the small intestine. Researchers were surprised to discover that in every case, a large amount of genetically modified dna survived digestion and remained intact.<b> (Biotech companies had insisted that DNA is broken down in the guts of people with normal digestive tracts, not freaks without most of their innards.)</b> Moreover, the modified gene from the soybean transferred into dna of bacteria inside the gut of three volunteers. Their intestinal bacteria, like gmo soybeans, contained a foreign gene that allowed the bacteria to survive a dose of weed killer. No one knows what the health consequences of this are, but since I don't understand it, it must be bad.


I'm sure that there is plenty of paid for science that will say that all of this is blown out of proportion. <b> But I'd personally put more trust in the folks who stand to make a fortune selling over-priced "organic" soy food products to old hippies with drug damaged brains.</b>


FYP

Brock
04-16-2008, 09:11 PM
Lazy goddam farmers!:cuss:

donkhater
04-16-2008, 09:40 PM
This will be long. The thread has touched on a few pet peeves.

First of all, I'll just say that I work in the ag industry, so you can take my comments accordingly. I say that not because I feel I have to defend GM foods, but I realize that no matter what opinion is put in front of people they'll believe what they want to.

So...

Organic foods are great. They are picked closer to ripeness so there are more natural sugars and flavors developed in the food when it is presented to the consumer. However, there are drawbacks for organic foods as the means to supply a global population.

#1--The yields just aren't there. Much, much more acreage would be needed for farming if the world were 100% organic.

#2--Storage. The same reason that makes organic foods taste better is the reason why they can't be transported and stored for extended periods. They are already ripe or near-ripe when they are harvested. Since obviously fumigants cannot be used to prevent fungal or insecticidal harm, organic foods have to be harvested relatively close to their consumer base (Farmer's markets are great for this)

A few things many of you may or may not know about organic foods--

1. They aren't any more nutritous than conventional foods. Worried about pesticides on your fruit? The alkaloids that are made from rot are MANY times more poisonous (accutely) than that pesticide. If you are concerned about residues--wash your produce before you eat it.

2. Some commercial pesticides have been approved for use on organic foods. They are natural products derived from bacteria fermented in batch fermention tanks, isolated, purified and used on organic foods. Trust me, their is NO difference between these 'natural product pesticides' and one invented and produced synthetically.

Don't misunderstand me. I love organic foods. They are fresh (which usually means better tasting), but as a means to feed the global population, they are not the answer.

I am not an expert on GM foods, but I feel as I can speak intelligently on the subject (as far as this fourmn anyway).

Plants have been gentically modified for centuries through hybridization. During this process the desired traits (insect resistance, drought resistance, flavor, color, etc) can achieved after many breedings but many undesired traits that aren't visible may also be passed along. That is because the breeder only looks for the trait they are targeting. As long as the rest of the plant appears fine, the breeding is deemed successful, but undoubtedly other gene modifications have taken place that aren't visible. These unintended modifications may or may not be harmful. Frankenstein foods? This what I consider Frankenstein foods.

GM plants are those in which a specific gene, which governs the desired trait the biologist wants, is the ONLY gene that is modified. The traits seen in GM foods today could be accomplished through breeding, but it would be much, much slower, more expensive and less exacting.

Having typed all this, I understand the public's concerns. Anything produced by big corporations (particularly food) will always be looked at with a skeptical eye. I, for one, understanding the science behind it all, have absolutely no concerns about consuming GM products, but everyone needs to statisfy that concern on their own.

I also see the point about limiting and destroying biodiversity within certain crop families. IMO that is the only real argument to be made against GM foods.

To end this long essay (sorry) I'll give some food for thought (pun intended). There are 4 times the number of insect species in tthe world than all other animal species combined. Add to that all the fungal pathogens that contribute to crop disease and you have a LOT of pests that need to be controlled in some way to supply the booming earth population. Either chemical treatments are the answer or GM is the answer. Do you see another?

chiefforlife
04-16-2008, 09:42 PM
Here is some information on this wonderful company Stewie supports that just came out this month in Vanity Fair. Read all 6 pages.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1

For the record I was on the defense when it came to getting capped on because I live in California, not the other way around.

I read all 6 pages and while I did come away with a dislike for Monsanto's, I still have no idea if GM foods are bad for you.
Injecting cows to produce more milk doesnt seem like a good idea but modifying a seed to be heartier and produce more product in a not so perfect environment does...

Hog Farmer
04-17-2008, 10:24 AM
Yeah! I hear it's mostly corn and soy that are most affected particularly packaged. Good thing I can only eat some corn. Geez! Think I'll start a garden after meeting a former CIA guy telling me how bad things are gonna get with food.


I think that CIA guy is right. I have a bad bad feeling that things are gonna get really really bad for a long long time. Our standard of living in America is going to plunge here shortly. I'm looking for 2009 to be a different world we'll be living in!

BIG_DADDY
04-17-2008, 10:28 AM
Most of the information I have on this is on my old computer. This is some information on the milk I remember though and punched back up when I googled it.

Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows – even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a
potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% - a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US. Part of the reason may be that the policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine…. and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk - and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Michael Taylor, Esq. was the executive assistant to the director of the FDA. He drafted the Delaney Amendment that allowed for the minimizing of cancer risk and was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently again became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA. Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola. Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.

oldandslow
04-17-2008, 10:28 AM
BEP

I always knew you were a "crunchy con" at heart.

Gardening will eat up your summers - I know. But they are really worth it.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 10:28 AM
I think that CIA guy is right. I have a bad bad feeling that things are gonna get really really bad for a long long time. Our standard of living in America is going to plunge here shortly. I'm looking for 2009 to be a different world we'll be living in!

I have to tell you this was one interesting dude. Older man in his 60's. He was with an adjunct of the CIA more but was involved in Latin and South American interventions. Specifically to find Che Guevara and kill him. Only the Bolivian police got him instead. For a very right wing guy, he believes this administration is bad news and is amassing too much power.

I don't know if true, but I guess it's best to be prepared. He said to start a garden, get canned food by a freezer and hoard meat as it's going to go way up. Gave me lots of survival tips. But mostly tried to convince me to buy a gun which I am reluctant to do. We talked about what it's like to kill another person and how time dilates in such dangerous situations. And he felt things were going to get dangerous in the US.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 10:30 AM
BEP

I always knew you were a "crunchy con" at heart.

Gardening will eat up your summers - I know. But they are really worth it.

What's a "crunchy con"? A vegetarian conservative?
If so I'm type O+ blood and I need meat or I get B12 anemic.
I buy organic hamburgers though. But I do eat in restaurants.

oldandslow
04-17-2008, 10:43 AM
BEP

Crunchy Conservative...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400050642/npr-5-20

Good book, actually - of course take this from an organic gardener who definately leans progressive.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 10:50 AM
BEP

Crunchy Conservative...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400050642/npr-5-20

Good book, actually - of course take this from an organic gardener who definately leans progressive.

Oh! I love it! I'll have to pick that up. Only I don't wear Birkenstocks and still like fashion.

banyon
04-17-2008, 01:51 PM
Plants have been gentically modified for centuries through hybridization. During this process the desired traits (insect resistance, drought resistance, flavor, color, etc) can achieved after many breedings but many undesired traits that aren't visible may also be passed along. That is because the breeder only looks for the trait they are targeting. As long as the rest of the plant appears fine, the breeding is deemed successful, but undoubtedly other gene modifications have taken place that aren't visible. These unintended modifications may or may not be harmful. Frankenstein foods? This what I consider Frankenstein foods.

GM plants are those in which a specific gene, which governs the desired trait the biologist wants, is the ONLY gene that is modified. The traits seen in GM foods today could be accomplished through breeding, but it would be much, much slower, more expensive and less exacting.

Having typed all this, I understand the public's concerns. Anything produced by big corporations (particularly food) will always be looked at with a skeptical eye. I, for one, understanding the science behind it all, have absolutely no concerns about consuming GM products, but everyone needs to statisfy that concern on their own.

I also see the point about limiting and destroying biodiversity within certain crop families. IMO that is the only real argument to be made against GM foods.

To end this long essay (sorry) I'll give some food for thought (pun intended). There are 4 times the number of insect species in tthe world than all other animal species combined. Add to that all the fungal pathogens that contribute to crop disease and you have a LOT of pests that need to be controlled in some way to supply the booming earth population. Either chemical treatments are the answer or GM is the answer. Do you see another?

I think this is a good summary of the "pro GM" position. The only think i think that has been left unsaid in this thread is that there is a definite profit motive associated with limiting and destroying the biodiversity which is good for the corporate bottom line in the short run, but may be bad for humanity, the food supply, or fertilization in the long run. By limiting and GM'ing foods, Corporations are able to patent a specific strain, thus owning and gaining royalties on that strain. By abandoning or in some cases it has been alleged, actively destroying existing seed lines, they are able to achieve bigger market share and make the general population more and more reliant on their seed lines. The question is what do we lose in this process and is it anything we should be concerned about before we can't recover the seed strains lost.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 02:30 PM
Gee, banyon. My log in was out again. That was a great post.
Never looked at it that way.

BIG_DADDY
04-18-2008, 02:54 PM
Gee, banyon. My log in was out again. That was a great post.
Never looked at it that way.

Yes it's a good post. We have two things going on here. What's best for me to eat and what's the best way to go about trying to deal with feeding the world. I agree that GM crops will give you more production. We simply don't know at what cost at this point. Another problem is world overpopulation. Many scientists believe we are already 7x over the maximum allowable population for people without effecting the balance of our enviroment. This is a big problem even if we were to assume that it is only double the maximum at this point. Fish population and food supplies are going to be a major issue moving forward. It's only a matter of time before we must see some kind of correction. If we don't make it through population control or more likely war mother nature will make it. Since I have an option i choose to go with foods that as good as I can get. If I had the money and lived in a different area I would produce the mass majority of what I ate. Actually I hope to do that one day.

NewChief
04-18-2008, 04:13 PM
Yes it's a good post. We have two things going on here. What's best for me to eat and what's the best way to go about trying to deal with feeding the world. I agree that GM crops will give you more production. We simply don't know at what cost at this point. Another problem is world overpopulation. Many scientists believe we are already 7x over the maximum allowable population for people without effecting the balance of our enviroment. This is a big problem even if we were to assume that it is only double the maximum at this point. Fish population and food supplies are going to be a major issue moving forward. It's only a matter of time before we must see some kind of correction. If we don't make it through population control or more likely war mother nature will make it. Since I have an option i choose to go with foods that as good as I can get. If I had the money and lived in a different area I would produce the mass majority of what I ate. Actually I hope to do that one day.

If you read the Omnivore's Dilemma that I was telling you about, he does an awesome job of breaking down the way energy/calories work in our current production vs. the older agrarian models. As you say, we can feed way more people, but it's not a sustainable model. It's also, arguably, unhealthy for us in the long term in a variety of ways.

Calcountry
04-19-2008, 10:35 AM
Yes it's a good post. We have two things going on here. What's best for me to eat and what's the best way to go about trying to deal with feeding the world. I agree that GM crops will give you more production. We simply don't know at what cost at this point. Another problem is world overpopulation. Many scientists believe we are already 7x over the maximum allowable population for people without effecting the balance of our enviroment. This is a big problem even if we were to assume that it is only double the maximum at this point. Fish population and food supplies are going to be a major issue moving forward. It's only a matter of time before we must see some kind of correction. If we don't make it through population control or more likely war mother nature will make it. Since I have an option i choose to go with foods that as good as I can get. If I had the money and lived in a different area I would produce the mass majority of what I ate. Actually I hope to do that one day.I just processed 15 chickens 2 days ago.

It is kind of nice knowing that what I am eating, was grown with the best food, and was actually loved prior to harvesting it.

The poor phat things cluck out a helpless cluck when you pick them up to take them to the slaughter.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 12:10 PM
I just processed 15 chickens 2 days ago.

It is kind of nice knowing that what I am eating, was grown with the best food, and was actually loved prior to harvesting it.

The poor phat things cluck out a helpless cluck when you pick them up to take them to the slaughter.

You should see the way they look at you with loving eyes when you pull their heads off with your own bare hands.

JohnnyV13
04-21-2008, 02:26 AM
Since I know a thing or two about GM foods, I can't help but put my .02 cents in the pot. I used to patent biotech inventions, and the vast majority of patents I wrote were for genetically modified ag products.

I, like donkhater, don't think there are any great dangers in consuming GM foods. He covered the subject pretty darn well. I would like to add this common sense argument, if you splice a gene from a safe food into another known safe food, why would you expect that protien product to suddenly become toxic?

Furthermore, some of the data cited here about the dangers of GM foods parse their words very carefully to inflame the perceived risks. For example look at this passage:

"Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola."

This sentance makes it sound like GM foods somehow insert herbicides into food using genetic techniques. That's not what's happening. What they talk about here are foods that are genetically modificed to so that a herbicide won't kill the crop. That lets the farmer eliminate weeds by spraying his fields with herbicide rather than removing the weeds with manual labor. The problem here isn't the GM food, the problem is the risks of spraying a crop plant with herbicide. (Then selling it to the public).

This selection also argues that 1) modified DNA sequence fragments were transmitted to intestinal bacteria (in 3 cases) and 2) that introducing "foreign" dna sequences can lead to immunological problems. Ok, but think about this: Lets suppose we modify crop A with a gene sequence from known edible plant B. How would it really be any different than eating a meal that included both A and B? Presumably, you could get DNA fragments from both plants incorporated into intestinal bacteria. Again, this selection makes it sound as if GM foods were the only ones that led to DNA transference to intestinal flora. BUT, dna transference CAN HAPPEN WITH "REGULAR" CROPS!!!!.

SNR
04-21-2008, 02:37 AM
At the risk of Ultra Peanut calling me a dumbass...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tIvNopv9Pa8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tIvNopv9Pa8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

JohnnyV13
04-21-2008, 03:48 AM
I think this is a good summary of the "pro GM" position. The only think i think that has been left unsaid in this thread is that there is a definite profit motive associated with limiting and destroying the biodiversity which is good for the corporate bottom line in the short run, but may be bad for humanity, the food supply, or fertilization in the long run. By limiting and GM'ing foods, Corporations are able to patent a specific strain, thus owning and gaining royalties on that strain. By abandoning or in some cases it has been alleged, actively destroying existing seed lines, they are able to achieve bigger market share and make the general population more and more reliant on their seed lines. The question is what do we lose in this process and is it anything we should be concerned about before we can't recover the seed strains lost.

Yeah, this is a good post. This problem is well known to biologists. Time magazine even wrote an article about the "biodiversity" problem. The problem is even worse than simply "losing" strains. If a few dominant strains win out in agriculture, we face the problem of huge percentages of the world food supply getting wiped out with one new crop disease. Such an incident could lead to a catastrophic famine. Wipe out 40% of the world's rice supply for one growing season, and you could see WW3.

Diverse strains lead to more "resilience" vs. changed conditions which harm organisms in a particular niche.

JohnnyV13
04-21-2008, 04:31 AM
That vanity fair article is a bit of a hack job.

Not that Monsanto is some kind of corporate angel, but boy, that article uses a lot of rather deceptive persuasion techniques. Yeah, dioxin and PCBs were bad, but its somewhat questionable to suggest that there's something wrong with GM organisms because Monsanto behaved badly 35 years ago with chemical compounds.

The whole long section on Monsanto's chemical sins really wasn't pertinent to the subject, other than to cast Monsanto in an evil light.

Certainly, Monsanto is no "sweetheart" corporation. But, some of of the reporting on the rBGH problem was really prejudiced. Lets clear some things up: first it doesn't make any difference if a hormone is "natural" or "artificial", the key issue is its chemical structure. Its not as if "artificial" bovine growth hormone will act any differently in the body than than "natural" BGH (presuming its chemical structure is the same).

The the vanity fair article mentions that Monsanto says milk from a rBGH cow is safe for humans to drink despite admitting all kinds of negative effects on the cow. And, it says that research shows BGH can cause a 400-500% increase in cancer risk. These facts are true, but they are presented in a deceptive (and prejudicial) way.

If BGH is going to affect a human, its probably going to act similarly to Human growth hormone. And, certainly we know that large doses of HgH in humans causes all kinds of problems, including drastically increasing growth rates of tumors. BUT THOSE STUDIES INVOLVED GROWTH HORMONE INJECTED INTO THE BLOOD STREAM.

From what I have heard, GROWTH HORMONE taken orally (i.e. introduced into the body through the digestive tract) does not get into the blood stream. Baseball players and pituitary patients don't stick themselves with needles for fun. THe only way you get effects from growth hormone is to inject it.

With that in mind, lets looks at rBGH risks. First, rBGH is injected in the cow, and presumably, a much smaller concentration gets into the milk (that's giving the rBGH crowd credit. The FDA seems to have found no increased BGH level in the milk). Even so, BGH WOULD STILL BE CONSUMED THROUGH THE DIGESTIVE TRACT. If mega doses of HgH taken orally doesn't do a dang thing, how can we expect that highly diluted doses of bovine growth formula will wreck biological havoc?

NewChief
04-21-2008, 05:50 AM
I have few fears about the health hazards of GM food. My concerns are in the agricultural practices it encourages: monoculture, unsustainable use of fertilizers, centralization of seed supplies, overuse of pesticides/herbicides, depletion of soil, dependence on large seed companies, overabundance of staple crops of corn/soil leading to market glut and little true economic viability for farmers.

BIG_DADDY
04-21-2008, 11:28 AM
If BGH is going to affect a human, its probably going to act similarly to Human growth hormone. And, certainly we know that large doses of HgH in humans causes all kinds of problems, including drastically increasing growth rates of tumors. BUT THOSE STUDIES INVOLVED GROWTH HORMONE INJECTED INTO THE BLOOD STREAM.

From what I have heard, GROWTH HORMONE taken orally (i.e. introduced into the body through the digestive tract) does not get into the blood stream. Baseball players and pituitary patients don't stick themselves with needles for fun. THe only way you get effects from growth hormone is to inject it.

With that in mind, lets looks at rBGH risks. First, rBGH is injected in the cow, and presumably, a much smaller concentration gets into the milk (that's giving the rBGH crowd credit. The FDA seems to have found no increased BGH level in the milk). Even so, BGH WOULD STILL BE CONSUMED THROUGH THE DIGESTIVE TRACT. If mega doses of HgH taken orally doesn't do a dang thing, how can we expect that highly diluted doses of bovine growth formula will wreck biological havoc?

HGH is very expensive and the most effective way to get the effects of it by far is to inject it just like roids. Roids however are not nearly as expensive to produce and there are tons of them that will give you great results taking orally. For you to sit there and say humans consuming rBGH orally will have no effect on us or our offspring in ridiculous IMO. For you to say taking mass doses of HGH orally would do nothing is even more ridiculous. I don't believe anything the FDA says either.

For the record I really don't care if people like yourself want to consume these products. What I care about is ethical sales of GM foods and milk produced by cows that are juicing. The consumer has a right to know what they are consuming so they can make decisions for themself on what they want to consume. IMO it is simpy unethical to not require accurate labeling.

BIG_DADDY
04-21-2008, 12:13 PM
I have few fears about the health hazards of GM food. My concerns are in the agricultural practices it encourages: monoculture, unsustainable use of fertilizers, centralization of seed supplies, overuse of pesticides/herbicides, depletion of soil, dependence on large seed companies, overabundance of staple crops of corn/soil leading to market glut and little true economic viability for farmers.

BTW I ordered your book today, thanks.

NewChief
04-21-2008, 12:17 PM
BTW I ordered your book today, thanks.

Cool. I think you'll definitely like it. I'm into the 2nd part of it now, which examines the modern "organic" industry.

JohnnyV13
04-21-2008, 02:48 PM
HGH is very expensive and the most effective way to get the effects of it by far is to inject it just like roids. Roids however are not nearly as expensive to produce and there are tons of them that will give you great results taking orally. For you to sit there and say humans consuming rBGH orally will have no effect on us or our offspring in ridiculous IMO. For you to say taking mass doses of HGH orally would do nothing is even more ridiculous. I don't believe anything the FDA says either.

For the record I really don't care if people like yourself want to consume these products. What I care about is ethical sales of GM foods and milk produced by cows that are juicing. The consumer has a right to know what they are consuming so they can make decisions for themself on what they want to consume. IMO it is simpy unethical to not require accurate labeling.


Oh, I certainly agree that the consumer has the right to know AND I think Monsanto is very wrong to argue that the dairy farmer should not be able to label his milk as produced from cows without using rBGH. Even if the public's fears prove groundless, I believe consumers have the right avoid that risk if they so choose.

As for the risks of BGH, you realize its Bovine Growth Hormone which, I presume, is the bovine equivalent to HgH? Your analogy to oral steroids isn't really relevant because the oral steriods are analogous to an entirely different family of hormones (testosterone, ect).

Now, I admit, medicine and pharmacology are not my within my field (I wrote patents), so I'm not really professionally competent to evaluate the FDA's approval. I'm just talking about why I'm not that worried on an intuitive level with BGH. But I do know a few things about HgH because my dad is a internist and I asked him about HgH and athletes.

I'm not talking out of my rear end when I say that HgH taken orally doesn't have effects. I'm drawing on studies done with respect to pituitary patients. HgH therapy isn't new, its been done for years. Long experience treating pituitary deficiencies led to the knowledge that HgH isn't effective taken orally. (pituitary patients, btw, must be treated as children if you want to increase their height).

Please don't think I'm running down organic produce in any way. In fact, I believe we are far too ignorant of dietary risks posed by chemical pollutants. I'm actually less worried about GM products, however, than I am about chemical residues.

Did you hear the news reports on recent studies regarding milk heated in plastic baby bottles??? That study wasn't any real surprise to me. I once worked for a startup reference lab, and one of the tests we did involved evaluting the ability of Natural killer cells in human blood to indentify and destroy cancer cells. The CEO switched test tubes to a differnt kind of plastic because they were cheaper, and suddenly, lab technicians saw an across the board drop in NK ability in the blood. Take the same blood sample, and run it the old test tubes (different plastic), and your NK activity was much higher.

While this was in no way a definitive study, I've tried to avoid storing and heating my foods in plastics ever since.

BIG_DADDY
04-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Oh, I certainly agree that the consumer has the right to know AND I think Monsanto is very wrong to argue that the dairy farmer should not be able to label his milk as produced from cows without using rBGH. Even if the public's fears prove groundless, I believe consumers have the right avoid that risk if they so choose.

As for the risks of BGH, you realize its Bovine Growth Hormone which, I presume, is the bovine equivalent to HgH? Your analogy to oral steroids isn't really relevant because the oral steriods are analogous to an entirely different family of hormones (testosterone, ect).

Now, I admit, medicine and pharmacology are not my within my field (I wrote patents), so I'm not really professionally competent to evaluate the FDA's approval. I'm just talking about why I'm not that worried on an intuitive level with BGH. But I do know a few things about HgH because my dad is a internist and I asked him about HgH and athletes.

I'm not talking out of my rear end when I say that HgH taken orally doesn't have effects. I'm drawing on studies done with respect to pituitary patients. HgH therapy isn't new, its been done for years. Long experience treating pituitary deficiencies led to the knowledge that HgH isn't effective taken orally. (pituitary patients, btw, must be treated as children if you want to increase their height).

Please don't think I'm running down organic produce in any way. In fact, I believe we are far too ignorant of dietary risks posed by chemical pollutants. I'm actually less worried about GM products, however, than I am about chemical residues.

Did you hear the news reports on recent studies regarding milk heated in plastic baby bottles??? That study wasn't any real surprise to me. I once worked for a startup reference lab, and one of the tests we did involved evaluting the ability of Natural killer cells in human blood to indentify and destroy cancer cells. The CEO switched test tubes to a differnt kind of plastic because they were cheaper, and suddenly, lab technicians saw an across the board drop in NK ability in the blood. Take the same blood sample, and run it the old test tubes (different plastic), and your NK activity was much higher.

While this was in no way a definitive study, I've tried to avoid storing and heating my foods in plastics ever since.


We moved to glass bottles. We had the Dr. Browns which was one of the lowest on the toxicity list but still was. You do what you can. Since having a kid it simply amazes me the amount of toxins that are approved for exposure to babies. The fire retardant stuff is the worst. Their mattresses, their clothes, everything.

Chiefmanwillcatch
04-21-2008, 04:15 PM
Hussein Allidina, at Morgan Stanley in New York, said pressure for export bans was likely to increase elsewhere as developing countries suffering high inflation tried to combat rising local prices by cutting back on exports of agriculture commodities.

Anyone understand how you cut exports to combat inflation

JohnnyV13
04-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Hussein Allidina, at Morgan Stanley in New York, said pressure for export bans was likely to increase elsewhere as developing countries suffering high inflation tried to combat rising local prices by cutting back on exports of agriculture commodities.

Anyone understand how you cut exports to combat inflation


Sure. A lot of third world countries have problems with foreign demand jacking up prices for food, because their currency is so weak on the world market. So the basic iidea, is to place export restrictions in order to increase the local supply and drive down food prices.

Chiefmanwillcatch
04-21-2008, 07:23 PM
got it.

BIG_DADDY
04-22-2008, 11:27 AM
Oh, I certainly agree that the consumer has the right to know AND I think Monsanto is very wrong to argue that the dairy farmer should not be able to label his milk as produced from cows without using rBGH. Even if the public's fears prove groundless, I believe consumers have the right avoid that risk if they so choose.

As for the risks of BGH, you realize its Bovine Growth Hormone which, I presume, is the bovine equivalent to HgH? Your analogy to oral steroids isn't really relevant because the oral steriods are analogous to an entirely different family of hormones (testosterone, ect).

Now, I admit, medicine and pharmacology are not my within my field (I wrote patents), so I'm not really professionally competent to evaluate the FDA's approval. I'm just talking about why I'm not that worried on an intuitive level with BGH. But I do know a few things about HgH because my dad is a internist and I asked him about HgH and athletes.

I'm not talking out of my rear end when I say that HgH taken orally doesn't have effects. I'm drawing on studies done with respect to pituitary patients. HgH therapy isn't new, its been done for years. Long experience treating pituitary deficiencies led to the knowledge that HgH isn't effective taken orally. (pituitary patients, btw, must be treated as children if you want to increase their height).

Please don't think I'm running down organic produce in any way. In fact, I believe we are far too ignorant of dietary risks posed by chemical pollutants. I'm actually less worried about GM products, however, than I am about chemical residues.

Did you hear the news reports on recent studies regarding milk heated in plastic baby bottles??? That study wasn't any real surprise to me. I once worked for a startup reference lab, and one of the tests we did involved evaluting the ability of Natural killer cells in human blood to indentify and destroy cancer cells. The CEO switched test tubes to a differnt kind of plastic because they were cheaper, and suddenly, lab technicians saw an across the board drop in NK ability in the blood. Take the same blood sample, and run it the old test tubes (different plastic), and your NK activity was much higher.

While this was in no way a definitive study, I've tried to avoid storing and heating my foods in plastics ever since.


I gotta tell you, I never thought anyone on here would ever show me something I didn't already know about roids, HGH or the like. I gotta tell you I had no idea that HGH couldn't be taken orally. I guess unlike other hormones the molecule is too big to be readily absorbed when taken orally at least to a measurable level. Interesting. I still prefer getting my milk from cows not on the juice. If I want juice I'll go get it myself. ;)

Thanks for the info. Good to learn something new. I have to tell you I am interested in HGH releasing agents. Arginine is great for blood pressure anyway. There is a GREAT doctor for that out here for that. I am probably still 10 years out though. Maybe sooner, we shall see.

JohnnyV13
04-22-2008, 05:02 PM
I gotta tell you, I never thought anyone on here would ever show me something I didn't already know about roids, HGH or the like. I gotta tell you I had no idea that HGH couldn't be taken orally. I guess unlike other hormones the molecule is too big to be readily absorbed when taken orally at least to a measurable level. Interesting. I still prefer getting my milk from cows not on the juice. If I want juice I'll go get it myself. ;)

Thanks for the info. Good to learn something new. I have to tell you I am interested in HGH releasing agents. Arginine is great for blood pressure anyway. There is a GREAT doctor for that out here for that. I am probably still 10 years out though. Maybe sooner, we shall see.

Oh, I've read about "secretogogs". And, yes, they work. Usually its better to take a combination of Arginine and Lysine to get the best HgH boosting effects. However, I have read a study that shows that secretogogs are ineffective for people already using a strenuous resistence training program. Resistence training itself can double or triple HgH levels, and this study showed that adding secretogogs didnt increase their HgH level.

BIG_DADDY
04-22-2008, 05:16 PM
Oh, I've read about "secretogogs". And, yes, they work. Usually its better to take a combination of Arginine and Lysine to get the best HgH boosting effects. However, I have read a study that shows that secretogogs are ineffective for people already using a strenuous resistence training program. Resistence training itself can double or triple HgH levels, and this study showed that adding secretogogs didnt increase their HgH level.


Can you link me that research?

JohnnyV13
04-22-2008, 11:17 PM
Can you link me that research?

I don't have it anymore. I found it on PubMed, if i remember correctly. But you have to have a subscription to get the full article. You might just try googling Secretogog, Arginine, Lysine and Exercise. The dosages are also pretty big, around 1 to 1.5 grams.

BIG_DADDY
04-29-2008, 03:10 PM
Cool. I think you'll definitely like it. I'm into the 2nd part of it now, which examines the modern "organic" industry.

I just hit this part. Informative and depressing.

StcChief
04-29-2008, 03:17 PM
switching corn to make ethanol withOUT back filling more production of corn is working well...
:rolleyes:

Hog Farmer
04-30-2008, 09:50 AM
switching corn to make ethanol withOUT back filling more production of corn is working well...
:rolleyes:


You Got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cuss:

banyon
04-30-2008, 10:40 AM
The World Food Crisis
By John Nichols
This article appeared in the May 12, 2008 edition of The Nation.
April 24, 2008

The only surprising thing about the global food crisis to Jim Goodman is the notion that anyone finds it surprising. "So," says the Wisconsin dairy farmer, "they finally figured out, after all these years of pushing globalization and genetically modified [GM] seeds, that instead of feeding the world we've created a food system that leaves more people hungry. If they'd listened to farmers instead of corporations, they would've known this was going to happen." Goodman has traveled the world to speak, organize and rally with groups such as La Via Campesina, the global movement of peasant and farm organizations that has been warning for years that "solutions" promoted by agribusiness conglomerates were designed to maximize corporate profits, not help farmers or feed people. The food shortages, suddenly front-page news, are not new. Hundreds of millions of people were starving and malnourished last year; the only change is that as the scope of the crisis has grown, it has become more difficult to "manage" the hunger that a failed food system accepts rather than feeds.

The current global food system, which was designed by US-based agribusiness conglomerates like Cargill, Monsanto and ADM and forced into place by the US government and its allies at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, has planted the seeds of disaster by pressuring farmers here and abroad to produce cash crops for export and alternative fuels rather than grow healthy food for local consumption and regional stability. The only smart short-term response is to throw money at the problem. George W. Bush's release of $200 million in emergency aid to the UN's World Food Program was appropriate, but Washington must do more. Rising food prices may not be causing riots in the United States, but food banks here are struggling to meet demand as joblessness grows. Congress should answer Senator Sherrod Brown's call to allocate $100 million more to domestic food programs and make sure, as Representative Jim McGovern urges, that an overdue farm bill expands programs for getting fresh food from local farms to local consumers.

Beyond humanitarian responses, the cure for what ails the global food system--and an unsteady US farm economy--is not more of the same globalization and genetic gimmickry. That way has left thirty-seven nations with food crises while global grain giant Cargill harvests an 86 percent rise in profits and Monsanto reaps record sales from its herbicides and seeds. For years, corporations have promised farmers that problems would be solved by trade deals and technology--especially GM seeds, which University of Kansas research now suggests reduce food production and the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development says won't end global hunger. The "market," at least as defined by agribusiness, isn't working. We "have a herd of market traders, speculators and financial bandits who have turned wild and constructed a world of inequality and horror," says Jean Ziegler, the UN's right-to-food advocate. But try telling that to the Bush Administration or to World Bank president (and former White House trade rep) Robert Zoellick, who's busy exploiting tragedy to promote trade liberalization. "If ever there is a time to cut distorting agricultural subsidies and open markets for food imports, it must be now," says Zoellick. "Wait a second," replies Dani Rodrik, a Harvard political economist who tracks trade policy. "Wouldn't the removal of these distorting policies raise world prices in agriculture even further?" Yes. World Bank studies confirm that wheat and rice prices will rise if Zoellick gets his way.

Instead of listening to the White House or the World Bank, Congress should recognize--as a handful of visionary members like Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur have--that current trends confirm the wisdom of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's call for "an urgent rethink of the respective roles of markets and governments." That's far more useful than blaming Midwestern farmers for embracing inflated promises about the potential of ethanol--although we should re-examine whether aggressive US support for biofuels is not only distorting corn prices but harming livestock and dairy producers who can barely afford feed and fertilizer. Instead of telling farmers they're wrong to seek the best prices for their crops, Congress should make sure that farmers can count on good prices for growing the food Americans need. It can do this by providing a strong safety net to survive weather and market disasters and a strategic grain reserve similar to the strategic petroleum reserve to guard against food-price inflation.

Congress should also embrace trade and development policies that help developing countries regulate markets with an eye to feeding the hungry rather than feeding corporate profits. This principle, known as "food sovereignty," sees struggling farmers and hungry people and says, as the Oakland Institute's Anuradha Mittal observes, that it is time to "stop worshiping the golden calf of the so-called free market and embrace, instead, the principle [that] every country and every people have a right to food that is affordable." As Mittal says, "When the market deprives them of this, it is the market that has to give."

banyon
04-30-2008, 10:43 AM
April 28, 2008

Dear Member of Congress:

All around the globe, food riots have shaken countries from Haiti to Egypt to India to Uzbekistan while rising rice prices cause grief in many Asian countries. A global food crisis threatens to impoverish millions around the world. Here at home, livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors have expressed their fears over skyrocketing commodity prices while higher food prices are eating into many family budgets. News reports nervously highlight that U.S. and world grain stocks are at all-time lows since World War II.

For more than a decade, and particularly during Farm Bill negotiations of the past year, we have been sounding alarms over the precarious state of our food security. The undersigned farm, consumer, environmental, religious and development groups believe it is urgent that we establish a Strategic Grain Reserve, similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and re-instate the Farmer-Owned Reserve.
Under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, the United States eliminated all its government stocks, save for a very small amount in the Emerson Humanitarian Trust Reserve intended for foreign aid. We are just one drought away from possibly seeing $10/bushel corn or $20/bushel wheat with absolutely no plan in place to deal with such a calamity. The president and U.S. Congress have irresponsibly ignored this issue throughout the entire Farm Bill debate, even as other countries such as China and India build up their strategic stocks. Last October, the European Union stated they would examine establishing reserves to further buffer against price shocks. The United States cannot afford such ill-prepared planning that is putting our food system and larger economy at grave risk.

The idea of holding grain reserves to stem hunger has been a part of many ancient civilizations. In the Old Testament, Pharaoh put Joseph in charge of Egypt's grain reserves that would set aside one-fifth of production to account for seven fat years followed by seven lean years. A "constantly normal granary" operated in China for over 1,400 years. China's grain reserve is presently between 150 million and 200 million tons. During the New Deal, the United States established grain reserves as a way to protect farmers from depressed prices and to ensure soldiers and consumers had enough to eat. The idea for the government to hold "buffer stocks" as a way to stabilize commodity markets was widely popularized by Benjamin Graham, a Wall Street legend who mentored Warren Buffett. In 1977, Congress enacted the Farmer-Owned Reserve in the Farm Bill as a means of "maintaining adequate food reserves." These policy mechanisms were all dismantled by the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. The global move towards free trade and trade liberalization means countries around the world have also forfeited much of their food stocks. The current price volatility roiling global food prices should come as no surprise.

Reinstating food reserves would facilitate more orderly marketing, protect consumers from price surges, and could meet energy and humanitarian needs. The possibility of short supplies seriously threatens our reputation as a reliable exporter and is one of the fundamental reasons behind current market speculation as suppliers hoard their stock and commodity traders buy and sell wildly. Currently, private corporations control U.S. grain reserves as a result of Congress's decision to privatize our excess commodity supply.

Our government should be responsible for providing a stable supply of food for their citizens in the face of unpredictable disruptions in grain production. Strategic reserves are also a much more responsible approach to addressing the rise in commodity prices that have caused much anguish from livestock and dairy producers, bakers and food processors. Some groups have advocated for allowing Conservation Reserve Program acres to be brought into production as a solution. We oppose this shortsighted move that would devastate ecologically sensitive land so revered by conservationists and hunters. We cannot grow our way out of this crisis.

Those clamoring for the days of cheap commodities need to remember that commodity prices collapsed after the 1996 Farm Bill, with corn falling to $1.50 / bushel and wheat under $3 / bushel. These prices were lower than what farmers received in the 1970s! As a result, thousands of farmers went out of business and billions were spent in emergency federal payments. Agribusinesses profiting from buying cheap corn and wheat have never showed much concern for the perilous plight of farmers. Now that higher prices are sparking cries for more production, the United States needs to have a long-term vision for preserving our food security and food sovereignty – much more than simply answering agribusiness's pleas for cheap commodities. A prudent reserves policy that stabilizes commodity prices would reduce controversial farm subsidy payments by ensuring prices do not collapse. Ten-dollar corn is a threat to our system, but $2 corn should be every bit as unacceptable.

A Strategic Grain Reserve is just as vital as a Strategic Petroleum reserve. It is not too late for Congress to establish policy that will benefit both consumers and farmers instead of leaving our fates to the whims and dictates of unstable, globalized markets. As a matter of national security, our government should recognize and act on its responsibility to provide a stable market for food in an era of unprecedented risk.

Sincerely,

Agricultural Missions, Inc.

American Agriculture Movement, Inc.

American Corn Growers Association

Ashtabula County Farmers Union (Ohio)

Border Agricultural Workers Project (El Paso, TX)

California Farmers Union

Center of Concern

Community Farm Alliance (Kentucky)

Congregation of the Holy Cross; Coordinator for Peace and Justice

Family Farm Defenders

Farm Aid

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund

Food and Water Watch

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

Grassroots International

Hispanic Organizations Leadership Alliance

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

International Labor Rights Forum

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement

Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Kansas Farmers Union

Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns

Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office

Missouri Rural Crisis Center

National Catholic Rural Life Conference

National Family Farm Coalition

National Farmers Organization

National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association

Ohio Farmers Union

Organic Consumers Association

Rural Advancement Fund (NC)

Rural Coalition /Coalition Rural

Western Organization of Resource Councils

NewChief
04-30-2008, 10:52 AM
I just hit this part. Informative and depressing.

Extremely depressing, although I'm fortunate enough to live in an area with an awesome farmer's market and some great cooperative buying programs. It's pretty incredible when he gets in depth on the way the farm where he lives and works for a week works. Made me want to be a farmer (yeah right!)

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 10:59 AM
banyon,

Thanks for posting. :thumb:

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 11:04 AM
Extremely depressing, although I'm fortunate enough to live in an area with an awesome farmer's market and some great cooperative buying programs. It's pretty incredible when he gets in depth on the way the farm where he lives and works for a week works. Made me want to be a farmer (yeah right!)

My goal is to move to La Honda in the next couple years. Plenty of people growing their own out there. I can do the chicken thing. I wouldn't mind getting a green house as well and growing a lot of my own. Friggen ton of work. Eating really shouldn't be this difficult. Can't build Rome in a day, one step at a time. I gotta say this book is very informative. I am reading 3 others currently so I got the CD on this one for when I go to work and back. I need to get the book now as well. There is just too much information that needs notes taken on it. Very, very informative. Thanks again for the heads up. Anything you learn you can pass on will be greatly appreciated.

banyon
04-30-2008, 11:48 AM
banyon,

Thanks for posting. :thumb:

These issues are of vital concern to everyone. It'd be great if our national candidates would discuss this issue as opposed to discussing whose pastor said what, who wears the flag pin, and who everybody slept with.

Fat chance of that, though.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 12:08 PM
These issues are of vital concern to everyone. It'd be great if our national candidates would discuss this issue as opposed to discussing whose pastor said what, who wears the flag pin, and who everybody slept with.

Fat chance of that, though.

It's a Pandora's box and everyone's ass is hanging out there. The mass majority don't seem concerned at all about the food supply at all other than the price. I guess I am just turning into a hippie, I guess Iowanian was right.

Here is one of my favorites. THe USDA who is about as corrupt as they get when it comes to protecting the consumer won't even get behind cloned meat and wants more research done but the FDA approves it anyway? It still amazes me the amount of support the FDA has received from the posters here at the planet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23997775/

Great little piece there on the worst foods too.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 12:22 PM
Wow, saltiest foods in America. 7,300 MG of salt. That's enough to give anyone with HBP a heart attack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24313369/?pg=21#TDY_MH_saltiestfoods

1: The Saltiest Dish in America
Romano's Macaroni Grill Chicken Portobello

7,300 mg sodium, 1,020 calories, 66 g fat
With three items on our top 20 list, plus a slew of dishonorable mentions, Macaroni Grill earns its title as America's saltiest chain restaurant. But what makes this the saltiest dish in America? One word: demi-glace, a fancy French name for the viscous salt slick that blankets this disastrous dish. You would have to eat 32 cups of potassium-rich broccoli to compensate for this sodium avalanche.

NewChief
04-30-2008, 12:24 PM
It's a Pandora's box and everyone's ass is hanging out there. The mass majority don't seem concerned at all about the food supply at all other than the price. I guess I am just turning into a hippie, I guess Iowanian was right.



I kept thinking of Iowanian when he talks about the plight of the Midwestern farmer. I'd be curious to see his take on it.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I kept thinking of Iowanian when he talks about the plight of the Midwestern farmer. I'd be curious to see his take on it.
When I posted a thread on organic food he just said he wasn't a hippie and didn't eat the stuff. To be a real man to him you must pollute your system with everything the FDA approves. That being the case I guess I come up a little light in the loafers in his world.

If he is really concerned about farmers you would think the FDA and USDA would be on the top of his most wanted list.

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 12:33 PM
When I posted a thread on organic food he just said he wasn't a hippie and didn't eat the stuff. To be a real man to him you must pollute your system with everything the FDA approves. That being the case I guess I come up a little light in the loafers in his world.

If he is really concerned about farmers you would think the FDA and USDA would be on the top of his most wanted list.

lotta old timers think organic as laughable because theyve eaten sprayed foods for 80 years. my grandpa and dad did anyway.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 12:56 PM
lotta old timers think organic as laughable because theyve eaten sprayed foods for 80 years. my grandpa and dad did anyway.

Well everybody has. Organic is a new for the masses. It still doesn't mean eating poisons are a good thing. I just fail to see how eating the best possible food you can eat could be a bad thing either. What's so funny about that?

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Well everybody has. Organic is a new for the masses. It still doesn't mean eating poisons are a good thing. I just fail to see how eating the best possible food you can eat could be a bad thing either. What's so funny about that?


homegrown anything is the best, organic anything isnt new to rural peoples who have small operations.
Meat from small operations tastes 100% better than store bought. America would do itself a favor by planting a garden, fruit trees and keeping meat rabbits and poultry.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:09 PM
New Phin,

One of my favorites from that book. What goes into a Chicken McNugget

The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a fascinating book that details the changing eating habits of Americans. I can't recommend it highly enough. It explains how, over the last 30 years, we have become a nation that eats vast quantities of corn * much more so than Mexicans, the original "corn people."


Most folks assume that a chicken nugget is just a piece of fried chicken, right? Wrong! Did you know, for example, that a McDonald's Chicken McNugget is 56% corn?


What else is in a McDonald's Chicken McNugget? Besides corn, and to a lesser extent, chicken, The Omnivore's Dilemma describes all of the thirty-eight ingredients that make up a McNugget * one of which I'll bet you'll never guess. During this part of the book, the author has just ordered a meal from McDonald's with his family and taken one of the flyers available at McDonald's called "A Full Serving of Nutrition Facts: Choose the Best Meal for You."


These two paragraphs are taken directly from The Omnivore's Dilemma:


"The ingredients listed in the flyer suggest a lot of thought goes into a nugget, that and a lot of corn. Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn: the corn-fed chicken itself; modified cornstarch (to bind the pulverized chicken meat); mono-, tri-, and diglycerides (emulsifiers, which keep the fats and water from separating); dextrose; lecithin (another emulsifier); chicken broth (to restore some of the flavor that processing leeches out); yellow corn flour and more modified cornstarch (for the batter); cornstarch (a filler); vegetable shortening; partially hydrogenated corn oil; and citric acid as a preservative. A couple of other plants take part in the nugget: There's some wheat in the batter, and on any given day the hydrogenated oil could come from soybeans, canola, or cotton rather than corn, depending on the market price and availability.


According to the handout, McNuggets also contain several completely synthetic ingredients, quasiedible substances that ultimately come not from a corn or soybean field but form a petroleum refinery or chemical plant. These chemicals are what make modern processed food possible, by keeping the organic materials in them from going bad or looking strange after months in the freezer or on the road. Listed first are the "leavening agents": sodium aluminum phosphate, mono-calcium phosphate, sodium acid pyrophosphate, and calcium lactate. These are antioxidants added to keep the various animal and vegetable fats involved in a nugget from turning rancid. Then there are "anti-foaming agents" like dimethylpolysiloxene, added to the cooking oil to keep the starches from binding to air molecules, so as to produce foam during the fry. The problem is evidently grave enough to warrant adding a toxic chemical to the food: According to the Handbook of Food Additives, dimethylpolysiloxene is a suspected carcinogen and an established mutagen, tumorigen, and reproductive effector; it's also flammable.


But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to "help preserve freshness." According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food: It can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget. Which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause "nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse." Ingesting five grams of TBHQ can kill."


Bet you never thought that was in your chicken McNuggets!

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:09 PM
homegrown anything is the best, organic anything isnt new to rural peoples who have small operations.
Meat from small operations tastes 100% better than store bought. America would do itself a favor by planting a garden, fruit trees and keeping meat rabbits and poultry.

Yea I am going to start down that path as I can't seem to find a good secret society of real food eaters out here to join.

NewChief
04-30-2008, 01:23 PM
Bet you never thought that was in your chicken McNuggets!

Ha! I read that section to my wife. Her mom likes to buy our oldest son McCrap whenever she's watching him. I told her I was going to photocopy that section and force her mom to read it.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:26 PM
Ha! I read that section to my wife. Her mom likes to buy our oldest son McCrap whenever she's watching him. I told her I was going to photocopy that section and force her mom to read it.

NICE!!!!

NewChief
04-30-2008, 01:26 PM
homegrown anything is the best, organic anything isnt new to rural peoples who have small operations.
Meat from small operations tastes 100% better than store bought. America would do itself a favor by planting a garden, fruit trees and keeping meat rabbits and poultry.

The problem isn't really with the organic vs. non-organic. The problem is where the use of pesticides has led our agricultural industry. Farms subsisting entirely on monoculture, not rotating crops any longer, etc. etc. What he points out in the book is that the "organic" food industry, which used to be about a lot more than just not having chemicals in the food, it was an entire philosophy of the way to grow, has become corrupted in their pursuit of profits, efficiency, and greater yields.

As you say, the smaller farms are the way to go. He spends a lot of time at Polyface Farms (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/), and their operation is amazing. The funny thing is that most of his techniques aren't New Age or anything like that. They're old concepts that we've gotten away from in our never ending quest for higher yields, greater mechanization, and easier growing.

Baby Lee
04-30-2008, 01:31 PM
New Phin,

One of my favorites from that book. What goes into a Chicken McNugget

The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a fascinating book that details the changing eating habits of Americans. I can't recommend it highly enough. It explains how, over the last 30 years, we have become a nation that eats vast quantities of corn * much more so than Mexicans, the original "corn people."


Most folks assume that a chicken nugget is just a piece of fried chicken, right? Wrong! Did you know, for example, that a McDonald's Chicken McNugget is 56% corn?


What else is in a McDonald's Chicken McNugget? Besides corn, and to a lesser extent, chicken, The Omnivore's Dilemma describes all of the thirty-eight ingredients that make up a McNugget * one of which I'll bet you'll never guess. During this part of the book, the author has just ordered a meal from McDonald's with his family and taken one of the flyers available at McDonald's called "A Full Serving of Nutrition Facts: Choose the Best Meal for You."


These two paragraphs are taken directly from The Omnivore's Dilemma:


"The ingredients listed in the flyer suggest a lot of thought goes into a nugget, that and a lot of corn. Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn: the corn-fed chicken itself; modified cornstarch (to bind the pulverized chicken meat); mono-, tri-, and diglycerides (emulsifiers, which keep the fats and water from separating); dextrose; lecithin (another emulsifier); chicken broth (to restore some of the flavor that processing leeches out); yellow corn flour and more modified cornstarch (for the batter); cornstarch (a filler); vegetable shortening; partially hydrogenated corn oil; and citric acid as a preservative. A couple of other plants take part in the nugget: There's some wheat in the batter, and on any given day the hydrogenated oil could come from soybeans, canola, or cotton rather than corn, depending on the market price and availability.


According to the handout, McNuggets also contain several completely synthetic ingredients, quasiedible substances that ultimately come not from a corn or soybean field but form a petroleum refinery or chemical plant. These chemicals are what make modern processed food possible, by keeping the organic materials in them from going bad or looking strange after months in the freezer or on the road. Listed first are the "leavening agents": sodium aluminum phosphate, mono-calcium phosphate, sodium acid pyrophosphate, and calcium lactate. These are antioxidants added to keep the various animal and vegetable fats involved in a nugget from turning rancid. Then there are "anti-foaming agents" like dimethylpolysiloxene, added to the cooking oil to keep the starches from binding to air molecules, so as to produce foam during the fry. The problem is evidently grave enough to warrant adding a toxic chemical to the food: According to the Handbook of Food Additives, dimethylpolysiloxene is a suspected carcinogen and an established mutagen, tumorigen, and reproductive effector; it's also flammable.


But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to "help preserve freshness." According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food: It can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget. Which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause "nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse." Ingesting five grams of TBHQ can kill."


Bet you never thought that was in your chicken McNuggets!

Corn, corn everywhere. Looks like Tank should've just found hisself a McDonalds instead of gazing at that empty field.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:33 PM
Ha! I read that section to my wife. Her mom likes to buy our oldest son McCrap whenever she's watching him. I told her I was going to photocopy that section and force her mom to read it.

Don't forget to give her a picture of the nutritious and delicious Mcrib samich.

NewChief
04-30-2008, 01:36 PM
Don't forget to give her a picture of the nutritious and delicious Mcrib samich.

:Lin:

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:39 PM
:Lin:


Come on dude, man up. LMAO

Reminds me of the new Taco Smell ad

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 01:40 PM
The problem isn't really with the organic vs. non-organic. The problem is where the use of pesticides has led our agricultural industry. Farms subsisting entirely on monoculture, not rotating crops any longer, etc. etc. What he points out in the book is that the "organic" food industry, which used to be about a lot more than just not having chemicals in the food, it was an entire philosophy of the way to grow, has become corrupted in their pursuit of profits, efficiency, and greater yields.

As you say, the smaller farms are the way to go. He spends a lot of time at Polyface Farms (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/), and their operation is amazing. The funny thing is that most of his techniques aren't New Age or anything like that. They're old concepts that we've gotten away from in our never ending quest for higher yields, greater mechanization, and easier growing.


man i really like that rabbit setup they use(something easy i never thought about). theres a fella that lives down from me that uses the same type poultry set up as polyface does for his broilers. i just free range mine and use pens for mateing pairs.

As far as old concepts my grandpa was a master gardner and he would rotate crops and put manure down and plant winter rye. He kept books on everything all the way back to the 40s.
When i was young his garden was about an acre or so and my dad kept a fairly large corn field.
we'd can and freeze all year. i really miss the family unity that came from doing those sorts of things.

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 01:43 PM
Come on dude, man up. LMAO

Reminds me of the new Taco Smell ad
people love those nasty things.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:44 PM
man i really like that rabbit setup they use(something easy i never thought about). theres a fella that lives down from me that uses the same type poultry set up as polyface does for his broilers. i just free range mine and use pens for mateing pairs.

As far as old concepts my grandpa was a master gardner and he would rotate crops and put manure down and plant winter rye. He kept books on everything all the way back to the 40s.
When i was young his garden was about an acre or so and my dad kept a fairly large corn field.
we'd can and freeze all year. i really miss the family unity that came from doing those sorts of things.

Yea that's really cool. I want to get my kid out of here and back to the basics before he gets much older. For some reason I had a different vision of you in your youth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSZ6k3QIsAk

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 01:52 PM
Yea that's really cool. I want to get my kid out of here and back to the basics before he gets much older. For some reason I had a different vision of you in your youth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSZ6k3QIsAk

wtf?
anyway a must own book. gives detailed instructions on how to do just about anything that goes down on a small farm.

http://www.amazon.com/Back-Basics-Traditional-American-Skills/dp/0895779390

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 01:59 PM
wtf?
anyway a must own book. gives detailed instructions on how to do just about anything that goes down on a small farm.

http://www.amazon.com/Back-Basics-Traditional-American-Skills/dp/0895779390

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

I'll order the book, thanks.

NewChief
04-30-2008, 02:15 PM
man i really like that rabbit setup they use(something easy i never thought about). theres a fella that lives down from me that uses the same type poultry set up as polyface does for his broilers. i just free range mine and use pens for mateing pairs.


I'm not sure if it talks about it on their website, but another slick way that they make compost from manure:

http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=4&page=39
After we moved the cows, Salatin showed me the barn, a ramshackle, open-sided structure where 100 head of cattle spend the winter, ever day consuming 25 pounds of hay and production 50 pounds of waste. Every few days, Salatin adds another layer of wood chips or straw or leaves to the bedding, building a manure layer cake that’s three feet thick by winter’s end. Each layer he lards with a little corn. All winter the cake composts, producing heat to warm the barn and fermenting the corn. Why corn? There’s nothing a pig likes more than 40-proof corn, and nothing he’s better equipped to do than root it out with his powerful snout. So as soon as the cows go out to pasture in March, the “pigaerators,” as Salatin calls them, are let loose in the barn, where they proceed systematically to turn the compost in their quest for an alcoholic morsel.

“That’s the sort of farm machinery I like—never needs its oil changed, appreciated over time, and when you’re done with it, you eat it.” Buried clear to their butts in compost, a bobbing sea of hams and corkscrew tails, these are the happiest pigs you’ll ever meet. Salatin reached down and brought a handful of compost to my nose; it smelled as sweet and warm as the forest floor in summertime, a miracle of transubstantiation. After the pigs have completed their alchemy, Salatin spreads the compost on the pastures. There, it will feed the grasses so that the grasses might again feed the cows, the cows the chickens, and so on until the snow falls, in one long, beautiful, and utterly convincing proof that, in a world where grass can eat sunlight and food animals can eat grass, there is indeed a free lunch.

MOhillbilly
04-30-2008, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure if it talks about it on their website, but another slick way that they make compost from manure:

http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=4&page=39


i dont know if id wanna handle 3 feet of cowshit.

BIG_DADDY
04-30-2008, 03:37 PM
Bingo, looks like there is one CSA out here and they have some openings this year. I am going to talk to the guy in a bit. I'm stoked.