Whaaaat? USDA poisoning birds?

[Sisyphus]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JL1pKlnhvg0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

And just to cover the other base:

Concentrated phosphorus and nitrogen in cow dung

Feeding distillers grain to cattle increases the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in their feces. Unfortunately, the ratio of phosphorous to nitrogen is so high in this cow dung that it is of little use as a fertilizer. Cows fed a diet that includes 40% distillers grain, have fecal material with 41% more phosphorous and 33% more nitrogen than cows fed conventional feedlot diets. More than 40 percent more land will be needed to treat the waste of cows consuming this by-product if it is disposed of by spreading it over fields. Even if the proper amount of land can be dedicated to treating wastes, water quality around feedlots will likely worsen. Eutrophication-the process by which streams with high-nutrient runoff clog with vegetation, reducing oxygen in the water, and killing fish and other aquatic organisms-is a proven result of large-scale cattle and dairy operations. More nitrogen and phosphorous cycling through these operations will intensify the deterioration of streams and rivers.

Increasing nitrogen cycling through feedlots also increases greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is a major toxic emission from large-scale agricultural operations. Nitrous oxide forms when bacteria naturally present in soils convert biologically available nitrogen to a gas bound with oxygen. In areas where nitrogen runoff is high, nitrous oxide emission is also high. Cows fed a diet of 40% distillers grain increase the amount of available nitrogen in their excrement by 33% percent. The amount of available nitrogen that forms greenhouse gases varies according to treatment methods applied to the waste. With over 200 billion pounds of by-product slated to be produced annually under Congressional ethanol targets, feedlots all over the nation will increase their nitrogen and phosphorus emissions dramatically.


Here's a little ditty about how fucked up GMO's really are. And how they invade other crops and ruin soil. I saved this one especially for Dozer:
http://www.suite101.com/content/harms-o ... ps-a218983

[Sisyphus]

I see "might" once, in reference to a study that names names and is easily found elsewhere. It was used a second time to support "GM Crops Cause Unintended Harm to Animals" unnecessarily because the next few sentences do that by themselves. I didn't see "possibly." "Could" is fairly unambiguous and in my opinion is an acceptable word that can be used in a nonscientific paper.
Just because the writer is finishing up some degree or other does not diminish the significance of the matter he presents. I didn't see any rhetoric and the quoted sources seem to speak for themselves. None of it comes off, to me anyway, as a bunch of propaganda put out by the foodies or other communists.

[xtian]

so it's winter again in your place too is it ?

[Sisyphus]

[DerGolgo]

what fantasy world do you live in? not let these plants grow in the wild? enslavement to the food companies? .

I live in the fantasy world where GM food crops cross-pollinate with wild plants and non-GM food crops and also start appearing where they weren't intentionally planted because of seed spilling from trucks or the inbuilt terminator-genes not functioning as intended.
It happens. That, to me, is introducing these plants to the wild. Unintentional, maybe, but it does happen. It may have quite horrible consequences down the road, in any case it gives companies like Monsanto the leverage to sue farmers who don't buy their product for patent violations or what have you.

Monsanto's business model rests upon the farmer having to buy new seed for each crop. They are not allowed to save seed for the next crop, as farmers have done for thousands of years. Some GM crops are designed not to produce useable seed at all, so the farmer has to buy new seed each year.
Once the GM seed companies get sufficient market share, drive the traditional seed companies out of business, it will become difficult for farmers to get their hands on traditional seed, and then what strains of what crop get grown depends on what the seed companies that are left are selling that year.
A corporation exists to make a profit. This is best done if there is no competition, when you only have a limited number of different products to manufacture and distribute and when your customers have no choice but to come back every year.

They may not be nefarious, but they are required by law to maximise their profit by any legal means necessary, on behalf of the shareholders.
Wether or not this is good for farmers or the consumer or mankind as a species is another matter entirely.

The Irish potato famine was mentioned before. What happens when a majority of the worlds crops come from a small number of GM seed manufacturers, and it just turns out that many of them share a trait that makes them vulnerable to a new strain of bacterium or a new fungus? Or even only one company's product has such a vulnerability? Diversity is what protects the crops of the world from massive blights.

Also, Monsanto soybeans have, in the past, delivered lower yields than their traditional counterparts:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 12179.html

They have, supposedly, improved on this and can now deliver the same yield as non-GM soybeans.
So, maybe, some day Monsanto and others can deliver hyper-yielding super strains of crops.
That still doesn't change the fact that, regardless of their intention, the idea that a handfull of large, puerly profit oriented corporations controlling the availability of seeds, is bad. Bad.

[dozer]

Yeah, however it may have been influenced.

how old are you?

41. Your point being...what? Seems like you have an issue with points of view that don't jibe with your preconcieved notions. Am I correct?

No, you misunderstand. My comment was not whether you're old enough to form an opinion on the matter (I'm 22). It was to call you out on your infantile "Oh yeah, wonder how your opinion was formed" jib at Jojo as an attempt to discredit his, I think, well thought out and logical post. This has nothing to do with your kids, Americas eating habits or anything other than the fact that genetically modified crops, or the fight against them, has long been lost. We do, and will for the foreseeable future have genetic engineering play a large part in our lives, crops included. If you want to discuss the merits or concerns with regards to having few large corporations owning the rights to said crops, that's a different argument altogether, and I can certainly see the risks inherent in that.

[Sisyphus]

Kay. I'm not so pointy.

Neither am I a master of the obvious. "Infantile" is not a kind remark. Have you already given up your New Year's resolution?

JoJo's statement, if you will, is influenced by what it is he does, so of course there's some biased opinion in it. I suppose I could have been more tactful. I wasn't. Whoop de do, what's new.

But whatever, I'm not going to save anyone or the world or maybe even myself. I should just stop struggling.