>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ghark:
Organic food
Feed the hungry
Punish those that created the problems
Deal with Monsanto
Stop the fake 'wars' (on drugs for example)
Doesn't seem crazy to me?
I used to really hate her with a passion, I thought her show was atrocious, but she makes real sense here, certainly a lot more than any 'mainstream' American politician I've heard recently. Good luck to her!

You thought "Roseanne" was atrocious? Get the fuck out of my country!

>> ^ghark:

Organic food
Feed the hungry
Punish those that created the problems
Deal with Monsanto
Stop the fake 'wars' (on drugs for example)
Doesn't seem crazy to me?
I used to really hate her with a passion, I thought her show was atrocious, but she makes real sense here, certainly a lot more than any 'mainstream' American politician I've heard recently. Good luck to her!


You thought "Roseanne" was atrocious? Get the fuck out of my country!

Organic food
Feed the hungry
Punish those that created the problems
Deal with Monsanto
Stop the fake 'wars' (on drugs for example)

Doesn't seem crazy to me?

I used to really hate her with a passion, I thought her show was atrocious, but she makes real sense here, certainly a lot more than any 'mainstream' American politician I've heard recently. Good luck to her!

I often wonder about that and fast food. Maybe you've heard of the cheeseburger bill before, maybe not. And while Super Size Me seemed a bit exaggerated at times the results he was getting from his doctor were SCARY. And while things like cigarettes and alcohol come with warnings from the surgeon general, fast food, in spite of the evidence that it's horrible for you, is protected by the aforementioned bill AND the public is under-educated about how dangerous it really is.

It's just a matter of time before we move on to soylent green for the masses. Oh wait...

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.

i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:

Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

I don't think you're that far off. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Another thing that comes into play are our affordable "luxuries". Cable TV, microwaves, dishwashers, heating/AC...these things are now things that we risk by protesting/revolting. Why go outside and get shot at when we can watch Cosby reruns for hours on end?>> ^peggedbea:

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.
i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:
Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.

i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:

Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

There have been no long term studies about effects on cars yet. None at all. Some did it a few years, but thats simply not enough. Here in Germany manufacturers actually didnt release proper lists which cars work with it and which wont until right after E10 was introduced, and even now they are changing those lists regularly. Sure, in other countries they have been running that stuff your years and years, but those countries also have no studies about it. As long as there is such a srisk (and we all know ethanol attacks aluminum and some plastics, that are in fuel pumps and fuel lines and injectors, etc, there is no way to tell how safe it is. Because the manufacturer only care about sales. If engines break sooner, thats just ok, especially since it was forced by the government, so "they are not to blame".

Its detrimental because it drives up the price of food. Have you checked the course of it lately? Also gasline becomes even more expensive because of it, to make people buy it. Very well visible when Germany added E10. From one day to another the prices jumped by 8 cent. Rich dont care about such increases in cost. But poor are hurt a lot by it.
Just look at Indonesia and the palm oil desaster. Many people are actually starving because farmers stopped producing food and instead make palm oil now. And even that palm oil isnt meant for the domestic market, its going straight to foreign countries. In South America the rain forrest is burned down every day to make place for bio fuel plantages. You should Google about soy, corn and Monsanto while were at it. Theres a good documentary about that too, that will open your eyes.

We dont even know how much oil we have left or exactly how it was created. I dont know the English word for it, but theres the "Erdölkonstante" that shows that since people found oil they always thought it will be depleted in a few years and those years are nowadays actually at the highest point ever and has been at this for several decades without decreasing. As long as we still have enough, there is no need to raise prices and develop stuff that hurts people and cars. Yes, the raise is artificial. To get the rich even richer.
There has not been "oil peak" yet, instead oil production is still increasing a lot, and many countries could raise it by a lot more if they wanted to. But they dont want to because the prices would fall drastically.

Bio fuels are a desaster for humanity. They hurt so many people, its not funny anymore. Also they are not better than gasoline for the environment. All taken together, they are actually much worse. To call bio fuels good for our planet is a farce, and if you really believe that its good and even an alternative to consider, youre just a sock puppet for the corrupt rich. Sorry.

Monsanto says you are not allowed to grow your own vegetables, they are licensed by the government to be the only provider of seeds, plants, and vegetables.

therefore home gardens are illegal



at least that is what it will turn into


I really hope some crazed farmer blows up monsanto someday

Yes, she mentioned allergies, however underlying these allergies are much more serious problems such as cancer (which she mentioned). Her speech was off the mark and the science was bad in a few places, however the underlying concept is accurate. In addition to this, you link articles showing that there are few or no studies showing the dangers of proteins such as BGH, however her point was that there are no human studies done to prove that it is safe. A 1950's study showing BGH doesn't help dwarves grow doesn't prove it isn't linked with human disease. Also, while her statements about BGH don't seem very scientifically credible, she does actually point out the real problem, the link that BGH has with complications such as mastitis, and the subsequent need for large doses of antibiotics.

>> ^marinara:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all
"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)
BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.
unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?
Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.
Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.
Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website
actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html
finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all

"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)

BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.

unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?

Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.

Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.

Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website

actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html

finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

The Monsanto company is a danger to the *health of to the food of the world. Monsanto has been lying to farmers for decades. Their greedy corporation will stop at nothing to twist laws to ensure that they have long lasting passive income at the expense of biodiversity and general health of agriculture. They're trying to do this to Europe too.

http://videosift.com/video/WL-US-bullies-Europe-on-behalf-of-Monsanto

Tags for this video have been changed from 'small, farms, food, local, farmer brad, texas, fda, csa' to 'small, farms, food, local, farmer brad, texas, fda, csa, monsanto' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

The FDA food safety czar is former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor. Huge conflict of interest.

@Tymbrwulf

Yes, but as you say, genetic mutation takes years to study...possibly generations. The profit margins are greatly increased as you say by speeding GMO's to market. This is a problem, obviously. And when you look at epigentics (and I urge everyone to consider it), a genetic mutation problem can snowball by generation.

When we talk about genetic mutation, we are talking about death, not simple side-effects. This requires long-term study. We don't really have a choice.

Most "farms"today are corporate subsidiaries. And from reports, smaller organic farms are being hit hard by those who don't bow to government/fda/corporate pressure to use their GMO seeds and pesticides. Raids on these farms and small organic grocery outlets are reported to be increasing in rate and severity. And the FDA just had their enforcement powers increased. We're talking about enforcement teams in full armor with submachine guns taking down a grocery store because they dared to sell raw milk. The "organic" movement is seen as a real threat to corporate profit margins.

I'm not a scientist, (my sister is the biochemist), but I almost died twice as a child because of exposure to "harmless" pesticides. Perhaps this affects my objectivity, or perhaps I am rightfully concerned and skeptical, given my personal history and the safety history of Monsanto and similar multinationals. But I am aware of ever increasing cancer rates, and declining fertility rates, and the common world-wide problem of corporate greed defeating notions of safety and common sense.

What a terrible strategy to combat childhood obesity. Banning the 5 cent plastic toy that kids throw away the next day isn't going to do anything, it's just going to save fast food joints 5 cents, which will be added to the advertising budget, which will entice more younglings to pad their little bellies with fat and clog their tiny little ateries with toxic sludge.

Banning high fructose corn syrup would be much more effective. Limiting advertising that targets children would be much more effective. A junk food tax would be much more effective. Enforcing stricter nutritional standards at public schools would be more effective.

At the Federal level, stopping the subsidies of HFCS would be much more effective. Not appointing members of Monsanto to the FDA would be much more effective.


Also, that is one disturbing screen shot. Thanks for the nausea, vaporlock.