Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 06:32 pm
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee307/edgarblythe/donotbuylist.jpg
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 2,938 • Replies: 33
No top replies

 
Zeke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 06:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Would you care to explain to me as to why I shouldn't buy some of these items on the list?
As well as what "Monsanto" has to do with it.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 07:23 pm
@Zeke,
Yeah, especially since that list of companies includes just about ever national brand in the grocery section if you include their subsidiaries.
mesquite
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2012 11:54 pm
@roger,
Monsanto is the leading producer of genetically modified seed, corn, soybean, rice, wheat, etc. 86% of the 2010 US corn crop was genetically modified. Corn in the forms of corn meal, corn oil, or corn syrup is widely used in the food industry so I suspect that is why you see such a large list.
Genetically Modified Crops
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 12:21 am
@mesquite,
I get your drift, but I'm still being asked to boycott everything.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 04:23 am
That's not my list. But I posted it because I am sure that most of us don't realize that as Monsanto goes, so goes the entire food chain, for better or worse. Without a widespread revolt, the game is over.
Zeke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 06:33 am
@mesquite,
If a majority are not in favor for genetically modified food, and wish to stop it and succeed to do so, then what they simply have done is starved the world. Organic foods are differentiated products that are affordable with a certain threshold level of steady income. This is not so for everyone in America and this is definitely not so in poor third and second world countries.
There are definitely more negative consequences than positive effects if one hopes to make the entire world to be sustained only on organic products.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 07:05 am
@Zeke,
There is a very large space in between organic and genetically modified foods.

I make a pretty considerable effort to avoid genetically modified foods and have done so for a couple of decades. I try to avoid products that contain corn (though Zesty Cheese Doritos stubbornly remain in my life) - won't even buy anything for my dogs that include corn/corn byproducts. HFCS is a huge no-no in my life.

We live quite well in that space that doesn't contain genetically modified food and also doesn't contain organic food.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:20 am
@edgarblythe,
This argument will only stick if organic techniques can actually increase crop yields to the level of bio-engineered crops. Food as with anything else follows the path that leads to a sustainable and stable economic system.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:22 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
There is a very large space in between organic and genetically modified foods.


What does that even mean??
What's in the space between organic foods and genetically engineered foods?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:22 am
@roger,
do you really buy stuff from the companies on that list?

most of them seem to offer packaged foods I wouldn't go near in any case so being aware of a few more doesn't change my buying habits
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:35 am
@aspvenom,
Much of the boohooing about genetically engineered food as opposed to routine hybridization the old fashioned way is because of the effect of having food plants be made roundup resistant. Roundup is a Monsanto product. Therefore large agriculture can spray roundup all over the place to keep weeds to a minimum, and this is pretty efficient at that, especially with repeated rounds of round-uping (glyphosphate, or glyphosphate).

However, many weeds have now become round-up resistant and are becoming in some states almost impossible to fight, even getting to be giant size. Thus the efficiency has created its own peril.

Some don't like genetically engineered food for purist reasons like "don't mess with plants", but hybridizing in itself is arguably not a bad idea to many.

People farmed for many years, centuries, without doing it organically, and still do a lot of places - just not what we know now of as Big Ag.

There's also the matter of biodiversity to argue about, but that's another subject, though related. It's also related in that Big Ag with its one-note type of planting has taken over more and more land.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:39 am
@aspvenom,
It's pretty straight-forward. There is food that is not genetically modified that is also not organic.

i.e. at the largest grocery store I go to, I can buy carrots labelled as organic, carrots, and carrots that have GM labelling

I buy carrots.


(the labelling for organic fruits and vegetables primarily has to do with how they are grown, not simply the source of the seeds/stem stock)
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 09:40 am
@Zeke,
I think all genetically engineered foods should be labeled to let the people decide what they want. And you don't have to worry, genetically modified food isn't going anywhere soon.

Are you aware of the man behind the green revolution?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574411382676924044.html


Quote:

Norman Borlaug arguably the greatest American of the 20th century died late Saturday after 95 richly accomplished years. The very personification of human goodness, Borlaug saved more lives than anyone who has ever lived. He was America's Albert Schweitzer: a brilliant man who forsook privilege and riches in order to help the dispossessed of distant lands. That this great man and benefactor to humanity died little-known in his own country speaks volumes about the superficiality of modern American culture
Born in 1914 in rural Cresco, Iowa, where he was educated in a one-room schoolhouse, Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work ending the India-Pakistan food shortage of the mid-1960s. He spent most of his life in impoverished nations, patiently teaching poor farmers in India, Mexico, South America, Africa and elsewhere the Green Revolution agricultural techniques that have prevented the global famines widely predicted when the world population began to skyrocket following World War II.

In 1999, the Atlantic Monthly estimated that Borlaug's efforts combined with those of the many developing-world agriculture-extension agents he trained and the crop-research facilities he founded in poor nations saved the lives of one billion human beings.

As a young agronomist, Borlaug helped develop some of the principles of Green Revolution agriculture on which the world now relies including hybrid crops selectively bred for vigor, and "shuttle breeding," a technique for accelerating the movement of disease immunity between strains of crops. He also helped develop cereals that were insensitive to the number of hours of light in a day, and could therefore be grown in many climates.

Green Revolution techniques caused both reliable harvests, and spectacular output. From the Civil War through the Dust Bowl, the typical American farm produced about 24 bushels of corn per acre; by 2006, the figure was about 155 bushels per acre.

Hoping to spread high-yield agriculture to the world's poor, in 1943 Borlaug moved to rural Mexico to establish an agricultural research station, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Borlaug's little research station became the International Maize and Wheat Center, known by its Spanish abbreviation CIMMYT, that is now one of the globe's most important agricultural study facilities. At CIMMYT, Borlaug developed the high-yield, low-pesticide "dwarf" wheat upon which a substantial portion of the world's population now depends for sustenance.

In 1950, as Borlaug began his work in earnest, the world produced 692 million tons of grain for 2.2 billion people. By 1992, with Borlaug's concepts common, production was 1.9 billion tons of grain for 5.6 billion men and women: 2.8 times the food for 2.2 times the people. Global grain yields more than doubled during the period, from half a ton per acre to 1.1 tons; yields of rice and other foodstuffs improved similarly. Hunger declined in sync: From 1965 to 2005, global per capita food consumption rose to 2,798 calories daily from 2,063, with most of the increase in developing nations. In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization declared that malnutrition stands "at the lowest level in human history," despite the global population having trebled in a single century.

In the mid-1960s, India and Pakistan were exceptions to the trend toward more efficient food production; subsistence cultivation of rice remained the rule, and famine struck. In 1965, Borlaug arranged for a convoy of 35 trucks to carry high-yield seeds from CIMMYT to a Los Angeles dock for shipment to India and Pakistan. He and a coterie of Mexican assistants accompanied the seeds. They arrived to discover that war had broken out between the two nations. Sometimes working within sight of artillery flashes, Borlaug and his assistants sowed the Subcontinent's first crop of high-yield grain. Paul Ehrlich gained celebrity for his 1968 book "The Population Bomb," in which he claimed that global starvation was inevitable for the 1970s and it was "a fantasy" that India would "ever" feed itself. Instead, within three years of Borlaug's arrival, Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production; within six years, India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals.

After his triumph in India and Pakistan and his Nobel Peace Prize, Borlaug turned to raising crop yields in other poor nations especially in Africa, the one place in the world where population is rising faster than farm production and the last outpost of subsistence agriculture. At that point, Borlaug became the target of critics who denounced him because Green Revolution farming requires some pesticide and lots of fertilizer. Trendy environmentalism was catching on, and affluent environmentalists began to say it was "inappropriate" for Africans to have tractors or use modern farming techniques. Borlaug told me a decade ago that most Western environmentalists "have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists in wealthy nations were trying to deny them these things."

Environmentalist criticism of Borlaug and his work was puzzling on two fronts. First, absent high-yield agriculture, the world would by now be deforested. The 1950 global grain output of 692 million tons and the 2006 output of 2.3 billion tons came from about the same number of acres three times as much food using little additional land.

"Without high-yield agriculture," Borlaug said, "increases in food output would have been realized through drastic expansion of acres under cultivation, losses of pristine land a hundred times greater than all losses to urban and suburban expansion." Environmentalist criticism was doubly puzzling because in almost every developing nation where high-yield agriculture has been introduced, population growth has slowed as education becomes more important to family success than muscle power.

In the late 1980s, when even the World Bank cut funding for developing-world agricultural improvement, Borlaug turned for support to Ryoichi Sasakawa, a maverick Japanese industrialist. Sasakawa funded his high-yield programs in a few African nations and, predictably, the programs succeeded. The final triumph of Borlaug's life came three years ago when the Rockefeller Foundation, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, announced a major expansion of high-yield agriculture throughout Africa. As he approached his 90s, Borlaug "retired" to teaching agronomy at Texas A&M, where he urged students to live in the developing world and serve the poor.

Often it is said America lacks heroes who can provide constructive examples to the young. Here was such a hero. Yet though streets and buildings are named for Norman Borlaug throughout the developing world, most Americans don't even know his name.
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 10:02 am
@ehBeth,
LOL, I see what you're saying. I usually clump those items ( anything that used pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers ) into genetically modified foods. I agree that this is inaccurate labeling by me.
0 Replies
 
Zeke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 01:54 pm
@ehBeth,
Speaking about healthy, any type of sucrose is unhealthy for you if you don't take it in small quantities. And it isn't the "empty calories” argument. Contrary to popular notion, it’s not about the consumption of empty calories but it has to do with how the human body metabolizes it that makes it singularly the most harmful effect to our bodies when consumed in large quantities. High levels of fructose are turned into fats by the liver cells. Furthermore, high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are sweeteners are identical in their biological effects. Since both of these sugars end up as glucose and fructose in our stomach, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. Upon a large number of studies, there is not a single evidence that shows HFCS to be more deleterious than other sources of sugar.
Any type of sugar is toxic to our bodies, so don't get too comfortable on the sole fact that you're avoiding HFCS and substituting some other sweetner in your diet.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 02:11 pm
@Zeke,
good thing I don't care for sweets eh

that in combination with avoiding HFCS works pretty nicely


Quote:
Upon a large number of studies, there is not a single evidence that shows HFCS to be more deleterious than other sources of sugar.


hang around - read some of the many threads that bring in the evidence of the dangers of HFCS
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 02:16 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Yeah, especially since that list of companies includes just about ever national brand in the grocery section if you include their subsidiaries.


I just read that list, and there was only 1 brand on the whole thing that I purchase.

I could easily give them up.

I'm going to look up the subsidiaries and see if I buy any crap from them.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 02:18 pm
@chai2,
I've already given up 3/4 of the available food on earth.

I refuse to give up my ketchup...

HFCS is evil.

and almost unavoidable if you have a sweet jones...
Zeke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2012 02:21 pm
@ehBeth,
I don't know about you, but I'd rather trust the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, rather than go with a few threads about HFCS on the internet.
HFCS, cane sugar, etc. all equally bad for you.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do Not Buy List
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 10:55:15