QUOTE

“We were sick of corporate farming, GMOs and pesticides,” Hendrick told Storyleak. “The price of groceries just keeps going up too so this is really the only way me and my family can survive.”

Unfortunately for Hendrick, once city council learned of his family’s chickens, a Worth County sheriff’s deputy arrived at his home late August to present a letter demanding he remove all animals from his property within 10 days.

“It really wasn’t a surprise. I don’t blame the sheriff’s department though,” Hendrick said. “There has never been a citizen complaint at all about my chickens or my gardens. It just comes down to the city government complaining about it.”

QUOTE

“They actually told me that I just needed to ‘fit into society’ and comply,” Hendrick said. “The mayor even told me that government intruding into lives like this was okay and needed, which I didn’t agree with.”

QUOTE

Stephen Ekker · Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
Seems to me that the GMO 'debate' is based on a few key points: 1) general fear of technology 2) general distrust of corporate intentions 3) support from a few largely discredited papers. I truly do not know of a single paper that shows a real threat due to GMOs, and most scientists like Dr. Borlaug consider GMOs to be essential for feeding the world in the 21st century.
Jun 3, 2013

Susan Kirk ·
ahahahha Stephen you add another element (4) of dare I say propaganda, feeding the world in the 21st century. Something else that has yet to be proved.
Jun 3, 2013

Stephen Ekker · Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
The Seralini study is truly terrible. As an editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, I read it initially and was in total disbelief that it had passed any level of reasonable peer review. The authors set themselves up for propaganda (since someone brought the word up) from the beginning - raising fundamental ethical issues about their motives. In the end, the only way that study will be totally and appropriately discredited will be for a quality version of it to be conducted with proper controls and statistical power.

Ironically, I am not a big fan of such an expensive followup study. I believe that Seralini's work is so bad that it does not deserve to be considered a viable report to pursue. We have real problems that are underfunded, and I'd prefer not to negotiate with what seemingly appears to be scientific terrorism.

Another reason I see no purpose to funding the negative followup study is that it would not convince the disbelievers. The autism / vaccination fraud work showed that people will believe what they want.

I am also sorry that members of that team are so blinded that they cannot see the fundamental flaws in that work themselves.

All of the data points to 9 billion passengers on Spaceship Earth by 2050. Where are they going to get food? Genetically developed crops are going to be a major part of that solution,
Jun 4, 2013

(Liberal @ May 05 2014,11:44 pm)

QUOTE

Good info about the GMO kooks on the left  being the equivalent of climate change deniers on the right.

< http://www.researchgate.net/post..._safety >

QUOTE

Eric Smith · Polyglot Studios, KK

Carlene: I object to your dismissal of historical facts as "rants". Let's look at the literally millions of lives Monsanto's previous products have destroyed:

1. Agent Orange - According to the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[15] Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, as did livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, and pigs. York,Geoffrey; Mick, Hayley; "Last Ghost of the Vietnam War", The Globe and Mail, July 12, 2008

2. PCBs - The National Institute of Environmental Health "...found evidence of an association between employment at this plant and melanoma and brain cancer mortality."

You can see company documents showing Monsanto knowingly hid massive public exposures from the public for decades: < http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/anniston/1.asp >

3. rBGH - After an 8-year scientific review, Canada banned the use of rBGH, Monsanto's first genetically-engineered product. The main concern is high levels of IGF-1 contained in the milk of rBGH treated cows, which range from 200% to 1000% normal levels when compared to those found in normal cow's milk. It's also banned in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Consumer's Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine, warn of health hazards from products derived from rBGH-treated cows, primarily over the link between elevated IGF-1 levels and cancers.

The main point is that this company has a very dark history of callously poisoning people and the environment, and then using very aggressive tactics to cover up the facts. They cannot be trusted with the safety of our food.

QUOTE

Stephen Ekker · Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
Seems to me that the GMO 'debate' is based on a few key points: 1) general fear of technology 2) general distrust of corporate intentions 3) support from a few largely discredited papers. I truly do not know of a single paper that shows a real threat due to GMOs, and most scientists like Dr. Borlaug consider GMOs to be essential for feeding the world in the 21st century.

QUOTE

Genetically modified foods…
Are they safe?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.
Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Since then, findings include:

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants

Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies

More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller

Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly

By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies

Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity

Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced

The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.

Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

< Article >

(Botto 82 @ May 06 2014,12:40 pm)

QUOTE

As has been pointed out before, as soon as someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, it's a pretty safe bet some part of them believes they are losing the argument...




If GMO's are so safe, why is the industry so Hell-bent on keeping them from being labeled as such?

QUOTE

A 2013 review of 1,783 papers on genetically modified crops and food published between 2002 and 2012 found no plausible evidence of dangers from the use of currently marketed GM crops.[78] Biofortified, an independent nonprofit organization devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering, [79] plans to add the studies found by the Italian group to its database of studies about GM crops, GENERA.[80][81]

< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies >

(Liberal @ May 06 2014,12:45 pm)

QUOTE

So when you called me looney tunes it was meant as a compliment, or did you just realize you were losing the argument?

QUOTE

If you honestly believe that there's no cause for concern when it comes to Monsanto, you're more looney tunes than I had earlier imagined. Retroactively using your logic, we would still have lead-based paint, lead fuel additives, and carbon tetrachloride fire extinguishers.

QUOTE

< 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs >

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

QUOTE

< Institute for Responsible Technology >

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit[2] reveal that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their vice president.

In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.

GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

QUOTE

Farmers When GMOs or GM Seed is Accidentally in Their Fields
Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.

Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.

It is truly as simple as this: Monsanto has a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”

The misperception that Monsanto would sue a farmer if GM seed was accidentally in his field likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto’s technology in his fields was accidental – even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme court, concluded his claims were false.

In 2012-2013, two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken any action – or even suggested taking any action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination.
The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) and others filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in an effort to invalidate Monsanto’s patents because of alleged fears of Monsanto exercising its patent rights and suing farmers if crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case and commented:

There was no case or controversy in the matter because Monsanto had not taken any action or even suggested taking any action against any of the plaintiffs.
Monsanto had a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
Plaintiffs’ allegations were “unsubstantiated … given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.”
Plaintiffs had “overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto’s] patent enforcement,” noting that Monsanto’s average of roughly 13 lawsuits per year “is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million.”
For information on Monsanto’s use of patents to protect scientific innovation, please visit the Innovation and Patents section of our web site.

< http://www.monsanto.com/newsvie...ds.aspx >

QUOTE

If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.” – Dmitry Medvedev

QUOTE

Russia Completely Bans GMOs

Russia has been considering joining the long list (and continually growing) of anti-GMO countries  for quite some time now. It does so after a group of Russian scientists urged the government to consider at least a 10-year moratorium on GMOs to thoroughly study their influence on human health.

A number of scientists worldwide have clearly outlined the potential dangers associated with consuming GMOs. I recently published an article titled “10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health,” you can read that in full here.  These are just a select few out of hundreds of studies that are now available in the public domain, it seems that they continue to surface year after year.

Russia completely banning GMOs, such a large, developed nation is a big step forward in creating more awareness with regards to GMOs. Ask yourself, why have so many nations banned GMOs and the pesticides that go with them? It’s because evidence points to the fact that they are not safe, they are young, and we just don’t know enough about them to safely consume them. They just aren’t necessary, so why produce them?

Within the past few years, awareness regarding GMOs has skyrocketed. Activism has played a large role in waking up a large portion of Earths population with regards to GMOs. People are starting to ask questions and seek answers. In doing so, we are all coming to the same conclusion as Russia recently came to.

In February, the State Duma introduced a bill banning the cultivation of GMO food products. President Putin ordered that Russian citizens be protected from GMOs.  The States Agricultural Committee has supported the ban recommendation  from the Russian parliament, and the resolution will come into full effect in July 2014.

This just goes to show what we can do when we come together and demand change and share information on a global scale. Change is happening, and we are waking up to new concepts of our reality every day. GMOs are only the beginning, we have many things to rid our planet of that do not resonate with us and are clearly unnecessary. We are all starting to see through the false justifications for the necessity of GMOs, no longer are we so easily persuaded, no longer do we believe everything we hear and everything we’re presented with. Lets keep it going!

< Collective Evolution-Inspiring us to expand our way of thinking >

QUOTE

If you would have taken the time to read the first link you'd see that you just posted the garbage that the writer debunked. Try to keep up.

QUOTE

It’s not every day you get to talk about chicken feces at a city council meeting.

Brittany Perry didn’t mind. The Austin City Council was in the middle of a discussion on a potential chicken ordinance during its June 2 meeting and she was there to listen, offer research and advocate for Austin residents who want to raise chickens in their backyards.

When Mayor Tom Stiehm grew concerned about chicken feces as an issue should the city pass a chicken ordinance, Perry was there to explain how chicken feces had less bacteria than other animal waste and could be used as garden fertilizer. Plus, chickens don’t produce as much waste as domestic animals, according to Perry.

“It’s all in how you take care of them,” she told the council.

Despite Perry’s research and the support of about 15 residents at the meeting, council members decided 4-3 to table a potential ordinance.

For Perry, the decision is just another step toward a larger discussion about chickens.

“I’m not discouraged at all,” she said. “It’s government, and I definitely was happy they tabled it instead of saying no.”

Perry is the latest in a long line of residents across the state who have petitioned their local governments to raise chickens in urban settings. It’s a growing issue within many communities and Austin’s city council is likely to discuss a chicken ordinance again.

< full story >

QUOTE

(< ABC 6 NEWS >) -- The City of Austin will not be moving forward with a proposed chicken ordinance.

In Monday's work session, the city council voted 4 to 3 against the proposal. The ordinance would have allowed people to raise a select number of chickens within city limits.

Council members have cited issues with property values as a reason not to move forward. We're told the issue could be revisited in the future.