Re: Organic Corn Kills Butterflies??? what the?

Page 3 of 3  
Now that I think of it - shouldn't the bumper sticker have said "GM Corn Kills....yadda yadda yadda"?
LeeAnne

google
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nice, lmao!!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We can now--we won't in the future at present population growth rates. Not every bioengineered development to date has been for the best but in that science lies the hope of the future. >

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.xx.com expounded:

Never mind what those hormones are doing to our little girls. Really, people, we don't know what we're doing, and our arrogance makes us think we can do anything we want. We're destroying the very web of life and most fail to recognize what is really going on. Blinded by making money.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The breeding has to stop. We have too many people on the planet. It's really that simple. We are overpopulated and eventually it will all collapse in on itself and start over again in another million years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in every country where 1. women get an education 2. women work outside the home 3. medical care almost guarantees all children live population growth approaches 0. The higher the level of economic development the more likely growth actually dips below 0. Ingrid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.xx.com wrote:

Then why does the populstion of the U.S. continue to grow? Just wondering.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
immigration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Then why when I was growing up there were 3 billion people, and now there are 5 billion?
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:53:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.xx.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock US pop. 291,792,888 world pop. 6,311,633,230 http://www.balance.org/alerts/alert042001.html Over 70% of population growth in the U.S., and over 96% in California, is caused by mass immigration. http://www.fairus.org/html/04109604.htm http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020212.html "Women in the United States are having more children than at any time in almost 30 years, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. In 2000, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime was 2.1, according to a new CDC report, "Births: Final Data for 2000." During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than two children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population (2.1 is considered the population's replacement level). "
"Among Hispanic women, the total fertility rate (3.1) was higher than the national rate, with the highest rates for Mexican women (3.3) and Puerto Rican women (2.6) and the lowest for Cuban women (1.9). "
the highest immigration is from Mexico, and women from Mexico have all the risk factors for having a lot of children, poverty, the experience of few children surviving their first year, little to no education, only crappy jobs available. Their daughters born in the US will look a lot more like typical Americans in number of kids.
Ingrid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
For awhile there, you had me fooled Ingrid! I really thought you were a genius, knowing so much about so many subjects! But of course, like anyone so sure of herself, you ultimately dissapoint. It is clear you do not know everything about everything, and we must now hold all of your opinions suspect. You are not paying a "usurious" price for milk. It is quite possible you pay more for bottled water! The dairy surplus is not "huge" as that industry is particularly burdened by inelasticity of demand with respect to price. The prices are now moving back up nicely, after a 24 month disaster caused by the 2000 farm bill. No dairyman really likes rBGH, but a free market will not allow producers to just choose whatever technology they wish. Most dairymen use it sparingly, or sporadicaly: for example, on either pregnant cows in late lactation or on infertile cows destined for hamburger. Technology used in this way has kept your food very cheap. I first produced milk for about $5.00 per cwt. in 1972 when a good car cost $3500, and you could buy a nice 100hp John Deere for $9000. Today, 30 years later, my clients are producing milk profitably for under $12/cwt. while a good car is now around $18000, and the John Deere will run you over $50,000. I don't know you, but am pretty sure you haven't spent much time in the country, or battled bugs, birds, markets, disease etc trying to actually make a living farming. Why are you so negative? There are whole government agencies (NRCS) with myriad rules and mega-billion budgets protecting our soils and they have done a damn good job. You can hardly find a moldboard plow at a tractor dealership in the midwest. And for your information, all the "idiot" farmers were broke a long time ago.
(Frankhartx) wrote:

will not

Not
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001480327_milk12.html "There has never been a greater gap between what a Seattle-Tacoma consumer pays for milk and what Washington farmers receive for that milk," the Washington State Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) says in a report released today. Quoting from data on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Web site, the group says the average price for a gallon of whole milk in this area in July was $3.52, while the government-set farm price was $1, second-lowest in the nation after the upper Midwest region, which was 99 cents." this article includes some reasons milk prices are so high.
1. I live in Wisconsin, the dairy state. There is (was?) a gradient with Wisconsin farmers getting the least in price support and price support getting higher as the distance from Wisconsin increases ... i.e. California gets the most. Most dairy farms in Wisconsin (my grandparents) were family farms, most dairy farms in Cal are agribusiness. 2. I live in Wisconsin, the dairy state. I turn on the local NPR and hear about how farmers are getting screwed with such low prices for their milk that many family farms are going out of business or getting out of the dairy business. At the same time people in Wisconsin are paying extremely high prices for milk. Wisconsin is a big "got milk" state (not that I can drink it). Thus ensues a big debate on what the HELL is going on. Senator Russ Feingold (WI) was been trying to get that "Wisconsin farmers get the lowest price supports" repealed. The idea at the time was to make sure all states were producing enough LOCAL milk for all the children and keep the prices low.
no one knows how many farmers are using rBGH cause they are not required to report same to anybody and Monsanto isnt saying either. But when the stuff came out around 1992 farmers were telling me (I was running for Congress at the time) that they were being pressured by Monsanto to use the stuff. I was part of a bipartisan group that worked to get Wisconsin to pass laws allowing labeling of milk as rBGH free (tommy thompson did sign it) to protect farmers from the wrath of Monsanto who was suing anybody labeling their products rBGH free. I did see rBGH free labeled milk for a few years, but dont see it anymore... well except Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Ingrid
... snip
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So what else is new? Of course the grocery chains exploit the price inelasticity of milk. If they price it cheap, you won't buy a gallon more, and it can go pretty high before you buy a gallon less. They defend themselves by saying that price changes confuse consumers and they would rather not raise it when farm prices go up. Farmers have always been at the mercy of processors and supermarket chains, but, co-operative ventures into milk bottleing have usually ended up with the co-op not being able to compete for one reason or another, and the farmer -owners taking another bath. So maybe processing and marketing actually costs money. Ya think? Milk marketing is a screwed up mess (in my humble opinion) with all sorts of complex twists and turns. The gov't support price has been very low and no-one could produce milk for any length of time for those prices. The 2000 farm bill essentially tacked on a deficiency payment capped at $37,500 so that dairies under 150 cows have an effective floor of $12/cwt. Larger western dairies have been getting an effective price around $10/cwt because for 1000+ cows the deficiency payment is inconsequential. The recent surplus was caused because the normal (past 50 years) process of little dairies getting sold to bigger ones got interupted. The little ones are hanging on with the gov't payment, and the bigger ones are getting killed. We've had a lot of heat in the west and that has helped dry up the surplus, and prices have moved nearly $3, but it may go down again by winter. I have never seen the ag banks so afraid of dairy credits.
You must not confuse the federal marketing order system with the support system. The federal marketing order system is not a price support mechanism. Marketing order prices begin with market prices established on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade cheese auctions, and also from a survey of prices paid or received by wholesalers. The federal order system mainly aims at giving all farmers an equal price and all handlers equal raw product costs. It seeks to eliminate the phenomenon of my neighbor gets one price and I get another. It discourages processors from beating farmers over the head to reduce raw product costs. And that system has gotten ridiculously complex (partly because they have to use prices to move milk to its highest and most efficient use) and I can assure you, neither of us has the time to understand it completely. Suffice it to say there has always been a lot of regional grousing about who is getting screwed by whom. Not many westerners feel sorry for Wisconsin dairymen.
I do agree with you that milk ought to be labeled for bst. Why not? Damn monsanto and the venal Republicans (and Democrats)!
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bioengineering is here to stay--not only in food crops but animals as well. It can be dangerous and is far from sufficiently understood and can be a dangerous thing--but like fire despite the danger we will not be able to live without it. You can either ride the wave or go uinder-perhaps somr day a new liver can be grown with your DNA signature that can replace your damaged one with no rejection hassle--conjenital genetic effects can be remedied. All through bioengineering. Don't decieve yourself, these crude first attempts are only thr beginning not the end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This seems reasonable. Although it *might* get tricky along the line of "this is the dog that ate the cat that ate the rat that ate the corn..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nowhereonearth.duh says... :) Well... evidently the :) GM corn's pollen contains something due to this gene that then gets blown :) all over the milkweed that the butterflies frequent and, get this, it alters :) the gut of the butterfly turning into more of a sieve than protecting it and :) thus allowing pathogens to be released into the butterfly's body. :) :) If it is all about the Monarch then the choices are the pollen of the genetically altered corn effecting one generation of caterpillar within 200 feet of the crop that is in it's two weeks phase of pollination and the pollen can be washed off by rain, or having crops treated with a BT insecticide that is designed to adhere to the plant thus lasting longer and will need several applications throughout the growing season causing harm to several generations of larvae or having the crop treated several times in the growing season with a non selective insecticide not only possibly killing Monarch larvae but adults and many other type of non target insects.
--


Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
several applications of Bt are not used. in many (most?) fields application is not needed at all. spraying of anything is not done unless there is an explosion of pests in a field because spraying for a few pests is not cost effective. So most fields of corn do not get sprayed.
having Bt in every cell of the corn means the corn borers are always exposed to the pesticide and guarantees selection for resistant corn borers. there are ways around this, but farmers arent doing what is needed. Ingrid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, genetically modified corn has incorporated a gene that self-produces that Bt toxin that organic farmers use as a pesticide. The trouble is, when the corn pollinates, the pollen spread far and wide, and yes, can kill monarch butterflies. Or many other insects it encounters.
Corn is not the only thing to contain that gene - there are varieties of GM potatoes and soybeans that also carry it.
It is my understanding that genetically modified food is not considered organic, though. Am I wrong?
Back in 1998 the New York Times had a very interesting article about GM food. YOu can read it here: http://www.organics.org/features/god_garden.htm .
-Shannon

"Organic
it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you are correct, it is not considered organic. However, that is not stopping Monsanto et al to attempt to get the FDA and whomever else to write the rules/regulations to include GMO foods as "organic". Ingrid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net / www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.