121 replies to this topic

[alternativista]

According to this Wall street journal article, Nestle and others are working on learning all about how the Enteric Nervous system, 'the second brain' in your gut, works so they can add things to your food to trick it to induce satiety. And of course, the authors of this article consider it a good thing.

http://online.wsj.co...1864235672.html

Fortunately, they are talking about processed foods that you can just not buy. Unlike with the unlabeled GMO foods or in the future where the GMO crops have ruined the DNA of everything else.

Edited by alternativista, 13 March 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[alternativista]

Some of you might want to sign this petition for their announcement of a new policy in which they focus on truth rather than trying to present a false 'balance' of both sides in an argument the way that most of our news media does. When the overwhelming evidence seems to point to one side of the argument, they will say so. Perhaps this will help get truth out about food and health.

Instead of focusing on reporting the truth, too many news outlets have decided their job is to tell the competing sides of any given story, no matter how unsupported by the facts one side may be.

In a positive move, National Public Radio recently issued new editorial guidelines rejecting this false balance. Disavowing the worst excesses of "he said, she said" journalism, NPR's new code of ethics states that "if the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports." This is an important step to curing what has become an endemic plague of false fairness in American journalism.

http://campaigns.dai.../?action_KEY=78

Edited by alternativista, 15 March 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[FaceValues]

Organic IS healthier. Be objective in your thinking. Also, it's pretty expensive. So, live a great life. Can you afford it? Sweet. Can't? Nottabig deal

[alternativista]

Other countries are smart enough to avoid GMOd crops/foods:

• In Germany, massive resistance to genetically engineered (GE) foods, both among politicians and the general public, has caused chemical giant BASF to move its genetically modified plant science headquarters from Germany to Raleigh, North Carolina
• In the United States, the vast majority of all corn, soy, canola and cottonseed grown are genetically engineered, which means virtually every processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "100% USDA Organic" label is likely to contain at least one GE component
• Last year, Mexico denied Monsanto’s request to expand a pilot planting project in the northern part of the country for fear that the genetically modified variety might cross-contaminate with other native species, and Hungary destroyed nearly 1,000 acres of maize found to be contaminated with GE seeds, to prevent cross-contamination to other fields

And I'm always hearing about various incidents in France where they ban this or prosecute that.

FYI, while Mexico doesn't allow growing GMO crops in Mexico, because of NAFTA, they can't stop cheaper subsidized GMO corn from the U.S. being sold there. And they sell it as whole dried kernals, aka seeds, because that's how the people use it to make corn. And those seeds get dropped in yards and along roads where they grow and then contaminate the hundreds of varieties of corn the natives have been growing for thousands of years, ruining it. So the poor farmers have to search their fields for any deformed ear of corn and get rid of the plant before the pollen can spread.

And here, an article about a plan to genetically engineer goats to provide vaccines in their milk: http://articles.merc...20320_DNL_art_2

Edited by alternativista, 20 March 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[Tunnelvisionary]

There's a lot of new information coming out in the past few weeks about the dangers of GMO's

http://www.skyvalley...-at-risk-943965

http://www.centerfor...rn-intensifies/

http://www.i-sis.org...idney_Cells.php

Last one is important especially, they've found that the Bt pesticide genetically implanted into corn kills kidney cells.

Honestly, I'm just glad GMO's affect corn and soy for the most part. I've never thought corn tasted good, and I can live without soy.

[alternativista]

Good article on CAFOs summarizing all the badness: the cruelty, how our government supports Big Ag while hindering small farmers, how unhealthy it is, the environmental harm, etc.

http://articles.merc...20322_DNL_art_2

[alternativista]

So, on March 31 the FDA is supposed to consider if they should ban BPA from food packaging. click here to send a letter in support:

http://act.credoacti...2061261-JW9iJ5x

[alternativista]

badseed.info - Website supposedly dedicated to telling the truth about our food.

Link goes straight to an article about the French finding Monsanto guilty of poisoning farmers:
http://www.badseed.i...nch-farmer.html

BUT!!! - it also has this really radical article about Bill Gates support of Monsanto claiming the family has a history of trying to control world systems
http://www.badseed.i...h-monsanto.html

The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process.

It then goes on to knock Gate's Sr's support of Planned Parenthood which it claims is also trying to reduce world population. (As if that was a bad thing. I am all for reducing world population. That's why I love a lot of post-apocolyyptic movies.) so take the site with a grade of salt.

Also, on the home page:
GMO Corn Kills Human Kidney Cells

The toxin created by most genetically modified corn, which now includes most corn on Earth, has been shown to kill kidney cells in humans, as does the herbicide used liberally on most GM crops. Most humans have the toxins in their blood stream as do most fetuses.

Edited by alternativista, 23 March 2012 - 08:43 AM.

[alternativista]

So, on March 31 the FDA is supposed to consider if they should ban BPA from food packaging. click here to send a letter in support:

http://act.credoacti...2061261-JW9iJ5x

48 hours left.

Right now we have 48 hours left to tell President Obama and the FDA that it’s time to label genetically engineered foods on a legal petition filed with the FDA by the Just Label It coalition. Tomorrow is the deadline to make comment, please add your voice today!

• Share on Facebook
• Post on Twitter
• Pass along this message via email -- click here or use the draft message below.

Last year a Canadian study discovered that insecticide toxins from genetically engineered (GMO) crops were found in the blood of 93% of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80% umbilical cords tested. Monsanto has maintained that these toxins in their crops would never affect the food supply or affect humans, but can we trust them? Today 88% of corn and 94% of soybeans are genetically engineered. How could this be affecting you and your family?
For the past 20 years, Americans have been denied the basic right to know what’s in our food, despite the fact that nearly 50 countries around the world already require labeling of genetically engineered food.
Unlike America, countries such as Russia and China label GMOs, allowing their citizens the fundamental right to know what they’re eating! Why not the U.S.? Because giant biotech and seed companies like Monsanto have written the rules for our governmental regulatory agencies and paid billions in lobbying, PR and campaign donations over the past two decades.
Please pass this link onto your friends:
http://action.foodde...4302.NFyUvC&t=5
Thank you for participating in food democracy,

[alternativista]

If you want for there to be uncontaminated food and clean air and water in the world, you need to start getting involved in environmental protection, energy conservation and sustainability. And to just plain use less stuff and waste less energy.

The mercury in the fish and acidification of the oceans that kills fish are caused by burning fossil fuels. Massive amounts of formerly clean water are used to extract fossil fuels and cool nuclear power plants. Mountains are pulverized (which pollutes water) to obtain coal, not to mention gold and other metals for your jewelry, cell phones and gadgets, etc. Buy resale. Buy refurbished. And keep things for a while. You don't need the latest and greatest every 4 months.

Big food involves farming and agricultural practices that damage the environment and are unhealthy and unsustainable.

I could go on and on, but here's an opportunity to encourage the EPA to puts some limits on dirty energy:
https://secure2.edf....eoh34n8.app304b

[tritonxiv]

Please explain to me how organic, grass-fed, non GM farms can affordably feed a exponentially increasing world population of 6.8 billion.

Organic/grass fed/non GM food is extremely expensive to produce. It's extremely inefficient in terms of output. Subsidies on vegetables and fruits are irrelevant, seeing as they are coming directly from your pocket in the form of taxation anyways. Vegetables are not expensive, unless people buy the afformentioned "premium" brands. They are at a premium because those types of farms are no longer practical for feeding the world, and have been phased out long ago.

I write this as I eat a bag of baby carrots. The bag isn't labeled organic and I'm sure they are GM in some way. And frankly, I don't see a problem with it.


Also, I don't know about you... but I can't find a burger for a buck anymore! They are all 3-4 dollars everywhere I go =[

Edited by tritonxiv, 27 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[alternativista]

Please explain to me how organic, grass-fed, non GM farms can affordably feed a exponentially increasing world population of 6.8 billion.

First of all, GM crops do not produce more food. And better farming methods were not phased out due to any lack of practicality. In fact they haven't been phased out. It;s just that most of our food now is produced by large corporations trying to make as much profit as possible without regard to the harm they were doing to the soil, and water. Things that are kind of important to our future ability to grow food. Not to mention ability to obtain it from the wild, i.e. fish.

CAFO and monocropping practices by these corporations is not sustainable and the whole system is going to collapse. And Polyculture methods practiced by smaller farms actually can produce more food with rotation of seasonal crops throughout the year.

Besides, the GM crops and most of our agricultural lands (in this country anyway) produce mostly grains used to produce the empty calories that make everyone sick and to feed animals that then need to be fed tons of antibiotics because they are sick from their unnatural diets and living conditions.

We will need less food when we 1) eat real food rather than empty calories. and 2) stop wasting so much food. We throw away half of what is produced. And pig out on far more than we need.

Also, we'd be able to produce more food on the land we have if we didn't waste so much of it. Such as in the lawns American's want around their houses so they can constantly mow, water and dump chemicals on it.

Besides, the world isn't suffering from a shortage of food. The issue is a lack of access, not a lack of abundance.

And there are more that 6.8 billion people in the world. Don't get me started on overpopulation. And burgers are a buck at McDonald's, not that that's relevant. There's no reason why your burger should be that cheap and many reasons why it shouldn't. Just like with cheap energy. We aren't paying the true cost.

Edited by alternativista, 27 March 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[tritonxiv]

I agree with your sentiments, don't get me wrong. I want to the world to be a healthier, cleaner place as well. But are we being realistic or idealistic here?

First of all, GM crops do not produce more food.

This is direct from wikipedia:

" A 2010 article supported by CropLife International summarised the results of 49 peer reviewed studies on GM crops worldwide.^[56][57] On average, farmers in developed countries experienced increase in yield of 6% and in underdeveloped countries of 29%. Tillage was decreased by 25–58% on herbicide resistant soybeans, insecticide applications on Bt crops were reduced by 14–76% and 72% of farmers worldwide experienced positive economic results. "

And better farming methods were not phased out due to any lack of practicality. In fact they haven't been phased out. It;s just that most of our food now is produced by large corporations trying to make as much profit as possible without regard to the harm they were doing to the soil, and water. Things that are kind of important to our future ability to grow food. Not to mention ability to obtain it from the wild, i.e. fish.

Again, I will restate that I agree Americans should eat less beef, and less in general. But all the legislation in the world will not prevent people from consuming what they want to consume. (see prohibition)

These are statistics from beefusa.org:

" Number of herds: 742,000

• 30.9 million beef cows
• 26.7 million feeder calves "

As long as the demand is there, production must be raised accordingly. You must be realistic and conceed that the demand for excess will always be there for people who can afford it. It has been this way for thousands of years. The wealthiest will consume more, because they can. The USA for example, is very wealthy.

CAFO and monocropping practices by these corporations is not sustainable and the whole system is going to collapse. And Polyculture methods practiced by smaller farms actually can produce more food with rotation of seasonal crops throughout the year.

Polyculture requires that humans bend to the will of the land. To only produce that which is natural and sustainable to that particular climate. In this day and age the fundamentals of supply and demand, in tandem with the expanding world population require the opposite approach: bending the land to our will in order to satisfy the wants and needs of the people.

Besides, the GM crops and most of our agricultural lands (in this country anyway) are mostly grains used to produce the empty calories that make everyone sick and to feed animals that then need to be fed tons of antibiotics because they are sick from their unnatural diets and living conditions.

While this is disturbing and not the ideal method of raising livestock, it is simply another natural consequence of the worlds increasing sense of entitlement to have more for less.

We will need less food when we 1) eat real food rather than empty calories. and 2) stop wasting so much food. We throw away half of what is produced. And pig out on far more than we need.

Again, it's been this way for thousands of years. As long as the world has wealth, the world will choose to use it for excess. This is a lovely dream, but nothing more. We should focus on finding real solutions that take into consideration and accept the fundamental natures of humans.

And burgers are a buck at McDonald's, not that that's relevant.

You call those burgers?

[tritonxiv]

The reality is research in genetic modification will continue to advance, and crop yields will continue to increase as third world countries gradually industrialize and begin to expect a new higher standard of living. A higher standard of living means more food required per capita, and more food means more efficient production. China is one example. A country full of farms. Do you think those people will remain farmers as the standard of living goes up? When actually given a choice, but what do you think they will choose? Be honest with yourself, and face the reality of our world's situation.

This will be the continuing trend until the day we invent Star Trek replicators. And I'm certain there will be much opposition to that as well, when the day finally comes! =P


If anybody really wants to change the world, focus on changing the minds of the people. Not the government!

If the people demand grass-fed, non GM, organic, self-sustainable food, the producers will find a way to supply it.

Edited by tritonxiv, 27 March 2012 - 05:29 PM.

[alternativista]

If anybody really wants to change the world, focus on changing the minds of the people. Not the government!

If the people demand grass-fed, non GM, organic, self-sustainable food, the producers will find a way to supply it.

That would be what we are doing.. ????

Also,

CropLife International is an international federation of agricultural biotechnology companies. It was previously known asGlobal Crop Protection Federation and International Group of National Associations of Manufacturers of Agrochemical Products. CropLife International is mainly driven by BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC Corp.,Monsanto, Sumitomo and Syngenta.^[2] These companies are sometimes referred to as Big Ag.

Direct from wikipedia.

You are citing Big Ag propaganda as truth??? Also, you are still talking about crops used primarily to make processed food with empty calories or are used to raise sick animals.

I don't consider McDonald's to be food. And I still don't understand the relevance of the burger talk. ????

I agree with your sentiments, don't get me wrong. I want to the world to be a healthier, cleaner place as well. But are we being realistic or idealistic here?

Again, I have to say: ?????? So don't be part of the problem. Odds are pretty good that you are younger than me. You will have to deal with the consequences more than I.

Edited by alternativista, 27 March 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[alternativista]

Maybe they'll discover the solution is for the cows to consume their natural diet and live outdoors in pastures. Not GMO'd corn, soy and ground up dead cows while crammed into pens.

Scientists will investigate ways to switch off a human gene that is thought to cause temperamental behaviour in both cows and humans in a new $1.35 million primary industries research project.

Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin, who announced the project ahead of the Australia's National Beef Expo 2009 in Rockhampton, says the new ground-breaking discovery could change the quality of beef.

"The genes thought to cause behavioural problems in humans are also found in cattle,'' Mr Mulherin said.

"We already know there is an association between the temperament of cattle and the tenderness of the meat, the more temperamental, the less tender.

"So if our scientists can learn how to switch off the gene that causes irritability in cattle then we can produce more tender meat which has a higher value to industry.''

Other factors to boost beef profits include annual calving and cows calving earlier in the season, which could lead to heavier offspring, he said.

Research leader, scientist Brian Burns, said the project focused on a new field of epigenetics, the study of modifications to genes other than changes in the DNA sequence itself.

This is from a blog called Circle of 13 with a delightful subtitle:

CIRCLE OF 13

RECOMMENDED DAILY ALLOWANCE OF INSANITY, UNDER-REPORTED NEWS AND UNCENSORED OPINION DISMANTLING THE PROPAGANDA MATRIX.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the U.S.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogens^viii:
“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California.”[/indent]
This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:
“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. "While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning," Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”[/indent]http://articles.merc...20327_DNL_art_1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bullet points on how GMO crops are producing super pests from the above article.

• Corn rootworm has developed resistance to one of the genes inserted in the genetically engineered (GE) corn crop that is designed to kill them. Twenty-two of the top experts on corn pests are urging the US Environmental Protection Agency to take action to halt the use of such GE crops
• Roundup-ready crops are also producing resistance; in this case herbicide-resistant superweeds. It's estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant. In an effort to keep on top of the growing weed problem, farmers are applying ever increasing amounts of toxic herbicides to their crops, which of course dramatically increases the amount of pesticides you ingest from consuming such foods

Edited by alternativista, 27 March 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[tritonxiv]

If anybody really wants to change the world, focus on changing the minds of the people. Not the government!

If the people demand grass-fed, non GM, organic, self-sustainable food, the producers will find a way to supply it.

That would be what we are doing.. ????

The "Big Ag" has more money, influence, and power in American government than the people will ever have. Even if this did go through, the mandate to label GM foods would do nothing to stop their multibillion dollar industry.

The "Big Ag" supplies us with most of our food. GM soy, corn, and other crops are in 70% of every processed food and livestock in America today.

Placing a tiny label on GM foods will do very little to change the attitude of the masses. It's common knowledge that being overweight causes a myriad of health problems and yet Americans continue to be most overweight people in the world. The reality is the people that can't afford to buy organic non-GM foods now, won't be able to afford them afterwards. The people that don't care enough to buy organic now, won't care enough to switch after afterwards.

Average American:

"Apparently I've been eating GM food for twenty years, why should I stop now just because some little label pops up? Especially if it's on brands I've been using for decades."

It's laughable to compare a cancer warning label to a GM food label. I hardly think that's "proof positive".

Since the patent on Monsanto's GM soy is set to expire in the next two years, we are going to see an increase, not a decrease of GM foods in the future.

I'm not saying I have the solution. But I am saying that GM food is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Personally, I think GM food will be key in the next 50 years to feeding our growing population. If that makes me "part of the problem", then so be it.

Edited by tritonxiv, 27 March 2012 - 09:12 PM.

[alternativista]

The people dying to feed you:

http://www.alternet....gX_NRX&rd=1&t=5

Highlights:

every year farmworkers are dying from thirst and heat exposure due to inadequate water and shade.

toxic pesticide exposures that send farmworkers to the hospital--up to 20,000 are poisoned annually according to the Centers for Disease Control.

​

currently, taxpayers subsidize agribusiness to the tune of roughly $15 billion a year--most of it benefiting large-scale production of additives for fast food and fuels that deplete our health and the environment.

----------------------
The new Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids

In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a

Biotechnology Basics Activity Book

for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book -- called

Look Closer at Biotechnology

-- looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale.

Lie #1: "Biotechnology is one method being used to help farmers grow more food." (page 7)

This statement is patently false.

In 2009, in the wake of similar studies, the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the data on genetically engineered crops, including USDA statistics. Their report -- Failure to Yield -- was the first major effort to evaluate in detail the overall yields of GE crops after more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States. According to the definitive UCS study, "GE has done little to increase overall crop yields." A number of studies indicate in fact that GE soybeans, for example, actually produce lower yields than non-genetically engineered varieties.

Research conducted by the India research group, Navdanya, and reported in The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes turns up the same results:

Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya's research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto's claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto's Indian advertising campaign reports a 50-percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised. (Page 11).

The claim that GE crops increase agricultural yields is a blatant lie. Equally untrue is the industry's claim that it is motivated by the desire to feed the hungry of the world. As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out: "For the most part, genetic engineering techniques are being applied to crops important to the industrialized world, not crops on which the world's hungry depend." Where does all the genetically engineered soy and corn -- two of the largest GE crops -- end up? In animal feed, processed junk foods -- and school lunchrooms. Precious little goes to feed the hungry in impoverished regions.

One of the sub-arguments related to increasing yields is the biotech industry's claim that GMO crops are more resistant to pests -- hence more of the crops survive. In Look Closer at Biotechnology kids are told that agricultural biotechnology is a "precise way to make seeds with special qualities. These seeds will allow farmers to grow plants that are . . . more resistant to pests . . ." In fact widespread commercialization of herbicide-resistant and Bt-spliced GE crops has engendered a growing army of superweeds and superpests, oblivious to all but the most powerful and toxic pesticides.

What we should be teaching kids in science class is what scientists have been warning for years -- that any attempt to increase resistance to pests through genetic engineering will ultimately fail. Insects -- and diseases -- will build up a tolerance over time, and evolve into stronger and stronger strains. That's how nature works -- and even Monsanto can't fool Mother Nature

• corn rootworms have now developed resistance to these GE mutants.
• a new generation of insect larvae has evolved, and is eating away at the roots of Monsanto's Bt corn

It then goes on to cover several more lies such as how they help farmers and the environment, and how they are growing foods to help make people healthier.

Why Hot Dogs, Chicken Nuggets and Some Other "Meats" Are Way Grosser Than 'Pink Slime'

http://www.alternet....X_NRX&rd=1&t=12

tritonxiv:

I've no idea why you felt the need to tell me all those painfully obvious things about big food. All those would be problems and the very point behind this thread. Again I have to express puzzlement by your posts. Here goes. ??????

Edited by alternativista, 31 March 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[alternativista]

Synthetic omega 3s added to all those products that now have "omega 3s' on the label made out of GM'd soil fungus and algae. Allowed in organic products.

Martek Biosciences Corporation's product is an omega 3/omega-6 oil (DHA/ARA) synthesized from fermented algae and soil fungus.

The oil is extracted from this biomass using hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics. It's added in all kinds of prepared processed foods, including baby food.

http://articles.merc...20401_SNL_Art_1

Also, in the same article:

Is the U.S. Becoming a "Dumping Ground" for Substandard Products?

Food in the European Union (EU) seems to be getting safer^v, while American food may be becoming more dangerous. The EU has been progressively tightening their standards, while the U.S. has been loosening theirs. Consider herbicides, for example.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and is the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is causing incredible damage to our environment. As a result of Monsanto's lobbying, a U.S. regulation passed in 2011 increased the tolerance for residues of the herbicide glyphosate on corn. The tolerance is even higher than the one allowed by international standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission^vi has established a maximum residue level for glyphosate on corn at 5 parts per million, but the U.S. regulation now allows 13 parts per million.^vii
The EU herbicide/pesticide legislation is probably the strictest in the world, a testament to their commitment to consumer protection. Besides limiting these chemicals, they ban genetically engineered foods and the hormone rBGH, whereas the U.S. continues to allow them. Many more such examples can be found.
As the European Union and other nations have begun to tighten their environmental standards, manufacturers have begun to use America as a dumping ground for consumer goods that fail to meet other nations' standards for toxic chemical content. Manufacturers ship wood, toys, electronics, pesticides and cosmetics to the U.S. containing substances that are banned or restricted elsewhere, because they raise the risk of cancer or cause reproductive or neurological damage.
Think about all of the dangerous and poor quality products we're importing from China that make the news now on a regular basis. Unlike the European Union, which uses a "precautionary principle" that prescribes protective steps whenever there is scientific evidence of risks to public health or the environment, the U.S. EPA relies on voluntary steps from the industries themselves. This model of consumer protection has unfortunately been swallowed up by corporate corruption. If the government is unable to provide the oversight needed to ensure public safety, then it's up to YOU, the consumer, to protect yourself.[/indent]

Edited by alternativista, 01 April 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[alternativista]

Where have all the Farms Gone?

During the past 50 years, animal agriculture has gone through a seismic shift in the United States. Long gone are the iconic scenes of American landscapes dotted with family farms and red barns. Most of these have been replaced by industrialized facilities controlled by large corporations that rely on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In this system, cavernous warehouses crowded with thousands—even tens of thousands—of animals form the equivalent of an agricultural assembly line. And independent farmers, once the cornerstone of rural America, struggle to compete in a marketplace dominated by a few big corporations.
...

The CAFO model relies on three interlinked practices in order to increase profits:

• Maximize the number of animals squeezed into the least amount of space and require the fewest number of employees to provide care.
• Administer continual doses of antibiotics to the animals to prevent the diseases prevalent in their close-quarters housing.
• Minimize the disposal cost for the substantial volume of animal waste produced by the facilities.

These practices may turn a profit for the big corporations, but they are disastrous for human health and the environment. Up to 1 billion tons of manure is generated by livestock operations every year, much of it from CAFOs. In some cases, the waste is stored in large lagoons or open piles that can leak or spill into adjacent land and water. In other cases, manure is liberally spread on fields in such overwhelming concentrations that soil and crops often cannot impede all of the nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens from reaching public waterways.

http://www.pewenviro...one-85899378434

And our government agencies do everything they can to hinder small farmers while aiding large corporations.

I had an article yesterday that I was going to post about how it's against the law in Michigan to have free roaming pigs, i.e. the way pigs should be raised.

Disastrous spill of hog waste into river:
http://www.nytimes.c...h-carolina.html

Edited by alternativista, 02 April 2012 - 09:17 AM.