PERB In Need of Banner

Harper to allow GMO crops to come into canada

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
I know alot of you SP's that work hard to stay in shape and eat healthy, hope something can be done about this. Ps potgrowers beware "war on drugs" may come to your doorstep.
The secret deal merges many aspects of each nation’s law enforcement and terrorism efforts, allowing authorities to operate on the opposite side of the border while beefing up border check surveillance. But there’s much more that we don’t yet know.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper are set to meet next week in order to sign a thus-far secretive “Beyond Borders” pact between the United States and Canada– and surprisingly, the deal will mean not only new practices in border security, law enforcement and counter-terrorism but also in standards for food production, trade and commerce.

The 32-point border perimeter plan is clearly part of the North American Union agenda, but many observers also believe it will open the doors to many GM crops now banned in Canada and enhance the positions of dominant corporate players. However, the details of the agreement remain secret and will only be revealed once both heads of state sign the deal– negating the necessary process of public feedback and consent.

CTV describes the new joint effort’s leaked plan for “a new entry-exit control system that will allow the United States to track everyone coming and leaving Canada by air, land and sea.” Further, it would facilitate a merging of authorities on both sides of the border. The Toronto Star writes, “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed last fall that the deal will authorize Canada and the U.S. to designate officers who can take part in police investigations on both sides of the border.”

While the Canadian press has rightfully focused on the massive power grab and privacy concerns posed by the new system (Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart expressed concern, stating that “she hasn’t been consulted on the project”), the deal will also have enormous impact on trade and industry, especially food.

CTV writes:

The 32-point plan also features more than just new border-crossing protocols… In fact, both nations plan to streamline and harmonize regulations in the automotive and food sectors.

While the immediate impact for the auto sector could mean, among other items, the adoption of “U.S. crash-testing standards for seat belts and built-in child booster seats,” there are scant details on what it would mean for food. However, many critics of the deal are concerned that it would eliminate barriers for aggressive biotech firms like Monsanto, who’ve thus far received a less than warm welcome in the great northern nation.

The Council of Canadians, a citizens action group, obviously fears an unwelcome invasion of biotechnology after monitoring announcements about the clandestine deal, writing:

“What kind of ‘regulatory alignment’ might we expect to see as a result of the Beyond the Border action plan? …the biotechnology industry association asked that both countries adopt ‘consistent science-based processes that would significantly decrease the time required for authorization of biotech crops and their products’; …several US agricultural groups asked for harmonization of the maximum permissible pesticide residue levels for produce.”

While GMO corn has gained acceptance in Canada already, farmers and activists have successfully fought or delayed the approval and entry of numerous other GMOs, including Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), GM alfalfa and have effected a court-ordered investigation of the effects of pesticides on amphibians, including Monsanto’s Round-up.

Monsanto vs. The Canadian Wheat Board

But the most notable victory against GMOs may be wheat, a major export in Canada worth more than $3 billion per year. It is the Canadian Wheat Board that got credit for fighting Monsanto against the potential effects of wheat contamination for the vast industry, and effectively prevented its entry into Canada.

“It has the potential to virtually destroy the $3.5-billion industry in Western Canada,” said Ian McCreary, a farmer and a director with the Canadian Wheat Board back in 2003.

By coincidence, the powerful Canadian Wheat Board was dismantled earlier this week, with many farmers now concerned about changes in market dynamics, and the potential for Big Agra corporations to move in.

Member of Parliament for the NDP, Romeo Saganash, writes this week:

The Wheat Board decision is just the beginning. They are coming after the dairy and egg boards. They won’t be satisfied until Viterra and Cargill and Monsanto control every bit of farmland in this country.

Globalism Breaks Agricultural Tariffs

The fate of the wheat board may well relate to the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) meetings, further integrating global trade and making non-membership a hazard to exports. QMI agency reported that “critics recently jumped the gun when they reported that the Harper government was prepared to bargain away supply managed sectors of the agricultural economy in the TransPacific trade talks.”

And yet the trend appears to be there. While the Obama and Harper administrations are working the U.S.-Canada ‘Beyond Borders’ agreement in secret, both are openly courting the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks to decide the Asian markets. Pacific trade would be tied to new openings in the wheat market, and observers say the tariff protected egg, chicken and dairy markets could be next:

Given the federal government’s ongoing attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, it wouldn’t be a huge philosophical leap for them to agree to change the way the dairy and poultry industries work.

Indeed, Canadian papers are full of discussion on the topic, with pro-globalism articles blasting the country’s food tariffs and praising the new “freedom” for farmers no longer bound to the wheat board system, always with an eye on dairy and poultry.

Critics say consumers pay a heavy price for the protectionist policy, and they argue Canada won’t be able to strike an aggressive free-trade deal with Asia-Pacific countries because of strong objections from Canada’s trade partners who oppose the supply management system.

They also have argued it is inconsistent for Ottawa to liberalize western wheat markets while maintaining the protectionist system for the dairy, poultry and egg producers.


GMO Contamination As a Rationale for Market Penetration

Adding to this perfect storm to blast open the gates for the benefit of private biotech firms is a growing debate currently taking place in Canada and other parts of the world over the “low level presence” of GMOs– a buzzword being used in attempt to allow the importation of non-GMO crops contaminated at a low level with GM crops in countries that have banned GMOs. Take for example this analysis from a European Commission research center:

This study addresses a new issue in the commercialization of GM crops, namely the occurrence of traces—or “low-level presence” (LLP)—of nationally unapproved GM material in crop imports. The commercialization of GM crops is a regulated activity, and countries have different authorization procedures. Hence, new GM crops are not approved simultaneously. This “asynchronous approval” (AA), in combination with a “zero-tolerance” policy towards LLP, is of growing concern for its potential economic impact on international trade.

Once again the banner of globalism and “free trade” will put pressure for acceptance of GM crops. The LLP angle is a great half-measure and camel’s nose under the tent.

Farmers are rightfully outraged at the trend. This op-ed printed at BClocalnews.com cites the threat it poses to the growth of organic farming in Canada, cited here at an astounding overall industrial growth rate of 20 percent per year.

I am writing to state my strong opposition to federal government plans to allow so-called “Low Level Presence” of unapproved genetically engineered (GE or genetically modified, GM) foods in the Canadian food supply. This plan would not only undermine the work of Health Canada, but would undermine the entire organic agriculture industry in Canada, which is a major part of the overall industry and which is growing at about 20 per cent per year… It is unacceptable that our government would allow a percentage of GM foods into Canada that have not been approved by Health Canada.

What precise impact the looming U.S.-Canadian border pact will have for the food industry remains to be seen, but it is clear that the trend will have important consequences not only for the loss of sovereignty in both Canada and America, but for long-term health. The European Commission study found a huge growth curve for the presence and acceptability of genetically-modified crops on the global scene:

To forecast the future evolution of this issue, we compiled a global pipeline of GM crops that may be commercialized by 2015… While currently there are about 30 commercial GM crops with different transgenic events worldwide, it is expected that by 2015 there will be more than 120.

Clearly, the amount of successful resistance to GMOs among Canadians has posed a problem for biotech. So-called “free trade” agreements that actually form cooperative blocs, including the U.S. Canada effort and the concurrent Trans-Pacific Partnership, aid in breaking down the barriers of local resistance to trans-national agricultural planning. Biotech corporations are all to likely to seize upon this change, with sights on untapped Canadian markets.

Canada-US Border Deal Threatens Sovereignty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o0jAAY2nlc&feature=player_embedded
 

chilli

Member
Jul 25, 2005
993
12
18
Why is it just crops that have you excited?

I mean are we not potentialy giving up a part of our sovereignty to the US with this pact?
 

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
If it is so good then why is harper against labeling GMO products so people know what they are buying? http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/canadian_news/2011/11/25/1920.html
If there is *ANY* good it's about offering people choices, by not allowing giant like monsanto to come in and get rid of the small guys thus being the only game in town. If you didn't know that is exactly how they operate. Just keep sueing the little guys with false claims so they have to spend all thier time in court instead of working the farm.
Since GMO's have been introduced to the states the standard of living has gone down, if you can point to any country where the standard of living has gone up since gmo's please educate me.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
...many observers also believe...
...While the immediate impact for the auto sector could mean....
...However, many critics of the deal are concerned...
...The Council of Canadians, a citizens action group, obviously fears...
...What kind of ‘regulatory alignment’ might we expect to see...
...It has the potential to virtually destroy the $3.5-billion industry in Western Canada...
...with many farmers now concerned about changes in market dynamics...
...The fate of the wheat board may well relate to...
...And yet the trend appears to be there...
...and observers say the tariff protected egg, chicken and dairy markets could be next...
...Given the federal government’s ongoing attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, it wouldn’t be a huge philosophical leap...
well, if that isn't the most cleverly put together collection of innuendos, maybe's, possibly's and thought to's to see print in a while...

sorry, this is yellow jounalism, not news

come back when you have some hard facts to produce

btw, a fact on genetically modified food, sweet peppers only come naturally in two colours - red and green. anything else - yellows and oranges for example - are genetically modified peppers. just sayin'...

i will agree on one thing: those frickin' giant strawberries, that seem to be the only thing you can get now, are without a doubt THE most taste-lacking collection of cells that you could eat, so I would gladly see those gmo's removed from our shelves

as for the 'marketing boards', consider this: you drive south through cloverdale and all you see is 'hobby' horse farms, hay fields to feed the hobby horses and bush. you cross the line into washington state and all you see is dairy farms, most of which have hand painted signs up proclaiming milk and eggs for sale. why is this? both areas have the same air, water , soil, and ethnicity of its people - could it just possibly be the presence of 'marketing boards' in Canada?
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,542
7
0
Calgary
If marketing boards are good for Canadians' standard of living, we should be having them for all products and all commodities. An Electronic Gadgets marketing board for cell phones & the like. Of course you would have to buy Canadian cell phones manufactured from Canadian Designs using only Canadian parts & labour sold under monopoly prices. I'd expect that the product would be similar to the old Motorola Brick phone that came out in 1978 with pricing to match ($5,000.00 / unit in 1978). We'd have a good solid local electronics industry that is incapable of selling anything outside of our borders & only able to sell here because they have a monopoly.

How about shoes & clothing? Plastic goods? Fruits & vegetables? What would be the cost of a head of Lettuce in Ft. St. John BC right now if it had to be grown in Canada?

It is idiotic base politics to protect producers at the expense of consumers. Why in heck should 34,900,000 people pay 25-50% higher prices for foodstuffs so that 100,000 farmers can have a closed market with captive consumers?

As for GMOs, there is no credible evidence that GM foodstuffs have any greater deleterious effect on the human health than the non-GM equivalents. Higher yields & lower input costs per unit of production, yes. Reducing the cost of food allows money to be reallocated in much of the world to luxuries such as education and health care & the locally made consumer goods that increase the standard of living of the local people. It is that first small amount of additional disposable income in the pocket of desperately poor people that starts their communities on the path to a higher standard of living. Forcing them to grow low yield artisan / heritage crops by certified organic means is one way to keep them poor and in their place I guess. At least then they have a small carbon footprint...:rolleyes:

I'm all for labeling GM products to give people choices after our libel laws are changed so that those folks that spread unsubstantiated stories about the perils of GM products can be sued by the developers of the GM products. If they can prove the truth of the harms they claim, they are doing society a service. However spreading unsubstantiated BS should result in them facing large settlements after a scrupulously fair trial.
High 5 dude ^.....that has to be one of the best and most articulate responses I have ever seen on ANY board that is based on P4P fun.....if I could give you rep I would have done so.

SR
 

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
I could care less about all that, the problem remains if GM foods are better then they would be marketed as such. When a new drug comes onto the market it undergoes LENGTHY testing. What kind of testing do GMO crops have to pass? How people can be so "pro" playing god and messing with mother nature, without intense testing is insane. So you get a cheaper product yet these products require "GM" chemicals to treat them. Want to know what kind of testing that gets? Dont forget about the terminator seeds which forces farmers to go back to monsanto for more seeds as they only live for one cycle.
The main problem is how underhanded and dirty GM companies operate, they refuse to label their products and let the consumers decide.
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,542
7
0
Calgary
I could care less about all that, the problem remains if GM foods are better then they would be marketed as such. When a new drug comes onto the market it undergoes LENGTHY testing. What kind of testing do GMO crops have to pass? How people can be so "pro" playing god and messing with mother nature, without intense testing is insane. So you get a cheaper product yet these products require "GM" chemicals to treat them. Want to know what kind of testing that gets? Dont forget about the terminator seeds which forces farmers to go back to monsanto for more seeds as they only live for one cycle.
The main problem is how underhanded and dirty GM companies operate, they refuse to label their products and let the consumers decide.
Wow.....now you are shooting blanks....go back to your tent city utopia.

SR
 

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
No blanks here just look at how they tried to sneak in bovine growth hormone into canada which was stopped. Shortly after everyone that stopped BGH lost their jobs.
Feel free to contribute something other than handclapping and being the hypeman for peaceguy. Facts and articles with research would be great. Unless your too busy choking on your puss infected milk.
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19991128221446
HOW BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE WAS REJECTED IN CANADA
by: Wolfson, Richard, Ph.D.
Prior to1980, Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) could only be obtained from cows, but with the development of genetic engineering, scientists were able to genetically engineer bacteria that were able to produce BGH in the laboratory. Even in the mid-eighties, scientists who were developing BGH were very concerned and said we should have long-term testing before we start using this in cows. When we inject a hormone into an animal or a human, it affects other hormones and it can have a whole cascade of effects which no one really knows. In Europe, hormones are not permitted to be used in cows; so Monsanto decided to change the name of BGH to bovine somatotropin (rBST) which was created to avoid using the word 'hormone'.

In 1988, about four different companies applied in Canada for the approval of bovine growth hormone. One of the scientists, Dr. Shiv Chopra in the human safety division of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, requested more information on the long-term effects on human health, particularly on the effect on the immune system and on birth defects, but no long-term studies had been conducted. The only research that was done, was a 90-day study on 30 rats. And even that study was not available to the scientists. So Dr. Chopra submitted a request for more research to ensure that it was safe, and the main effect of his request was that he was taken off the BGH review, and all of the other scientists in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs were also taken off the review of BGH. It seems that industry pressured Health Canada and the only people who were allowed to do the review of BGH were the upper level management. The fellow, Monseignon, the chief of the Human Safety Division approved it, going against the advice of his own scientists, even though the scientists said it wasn't safe for humans because the safety tests weren't done to prove it which is a very scary thing - that he could veto his own scientists. That happened around 1990.

Health Canada based their approval solely on an abstract of a study published in Science magazine by two American scientists who worked for Monsanto. This was the 90-day study of 30 rats. During the whole time period, from 1994 to 1998, the scientists at Health Canada couldn't even get a look at it because the complete study was kept locked up and kept secret. By law, the scientists in Health Canada are supposed to study the research before the drug is approved.

In 1993, when BGH was approved in the U.S. it was approved on the basis of the same limited information in this journal abstract. Upper management level scientists at Monsanto claim that since BGH is a protein, it gets digested and broken down so there won't be any physiological problems. However, within the last year, the scientists at Health Canada were able to obtain the whole study. Research on the animals showed that BGH does pass through the gut, the animals had increased antibody levels, and at the same time there was damage to various organs such as cysts in the thyroid and inflammation of the prostate and other glands.

There are two levels of approval. First there is approval for human safety and then there is approval for animal safety. After BGH was approved in the Human Safety Division in Canada, against the advice of the scientists who got vetoed by their boss, it was passed onto the Animal Safety Division. In the Animal Safety Division it wound up in the hands of another scientist, Margaret Hayden, and the people who passed it along to her didn't realize she had a conscience. So she started looking at the results of the research that was given to her (industry does the research, and they pass it along to Health Canada). She found problems such as mastitis or inflammation of the udder, joint problems, deformed offspring, and a decrease in lifespan of up to two years. So Dr. Margaret Hayden recommended it not be approved. What do you think happened to Dr. Margaret Hayden, after she made this recommendation? She got dropped. She was never allowed to study BGH again.

Margaret Hayden was one of the scientists who were at a meeting with Monsanto officials when they offered Health Canada one to two million dollars to approve BGH without any further studies. Fifth Estate, Canada AM, and several other TV stations have confirmed this by talking to other people present at the meeting. Len Ritter, the Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs tried to pressure Margaret Hayden to approve BGH conditionally, and subsequently keep records of the effects of the hormone on the cows and the humans. Margaret responded that it's illegal to approve a drug, and allow it on the market before it is shown to be safe. Then what happened to Margaret was very scary, to say the least. A few weeks later, Margaret came in Monday morning and realized someone had stolen all her records on Bovine Growth Hormone, research showing that it produced lameness in animals and increased mastitis, as well as the notes she had taken at the meetings when Monsanto offered one to two million dollars to Health Canada.

Back in 1996, scientists in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs filed a grievance that they were being pressured to approve drugs against their professional judgement, that they are being coerced and threatened. These are scientists who are just trying to protect our health. Another hormone, Revlor H, is injected into cattle to get them to produce more meat. Margaret Hayden looked at the research on Revlor H and found enlarged ovaries, uterus and prostate, and shrunken thymus glands, which were very extreme warning signals. She tried to stop it and her boss, again, vetoed her and approved it anyhow. Another scientist agreed that it shouldn't be approved, and Don Landry, the Head of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs said, "So what. They are just going to be slaughtered." The scientist said, "What do you mean? They are going to be eaten." There is some extreme financial pressure being exerted by industry on Health Canada.

Early this year, the Canadian Senate Agriculture Committee was conducting its own evaluation of BGH, and when they heard Margaret Hayden's reports of bribery and of stolen documents, they were completely amazed. They didn't believe they were in Canada. When the Senate Agriculture Committee gave its interim report on BGH, one of the main recommendations was that there should be a very deep investigation of the relationship between Health Canada management and industry, because they are just too closely intertwined. Industry gives Health Canada money to do research. As a result, Health Canada looks on industry as its client and wants to keep its client happy, so it wants to process its requests for drug approvals very quickly. And that is basically what is going on. Finally, at the beginning of 1999, Health Canada decided that it couldn't push BGH through, but they still wouldn't admit that there were safety problems for humans, because they had already announced back in 1990 that it was safe.

But that's not really the end of the story, because it is still being used in the U.S. The Consumer Union, Michael Hanson, and various public interests groups want an investigation into the approval process. It seems their approval process is what they call a 'revolving door policy'. Margaret Miller who did much of the research on BGH at Monsanto, was then hired by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the US government, and then she ended up approving her own research on BGH. So it seems the whole approval process and the relationship between industry (particularly Monsanto) and government health departments both in Canada and in the U.S. are slimy.


* * *
BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE: "CRACK FOR COWS"

by investigative reporters: Steve Wilson and Jane Akery for Fox TV, Tampa Florida

HEALTH EFFECTS ON COWS Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) whose brand name is Posilac, is a genetically engineered hormone produced by the giant Monsanto chemical company. They are promoting it to farmers as "the single most tested new product in history specifically so you can increase your profit potential". Posilac increases milk production by up to 30% but shortens cows' lives by about two years. Twenty potential troubles are listed on the product-warning label. If untreated, the infection can get into the cow's milk, so farmers try to cure it by giving the cow shots of antibiotics, more drugs that can find their way into the milk on your table which could make your own body more resistant to antibiotics.

HEALTH EFFECTS ON HUMANS Apart from potential suffering for the animals, the biggest concern is what effect the drug might have on us and our children when they drink milk from treated cows. The growth hormone was approved by the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine as an animal drug, but many scientists say that since BGH affects the milk we drink, it should be tested as if it were a human drug. A human drug requires two years of carcinogenicity testing and extensive birth defect testing. BGH milk was tested 90 days on 30 rats before it was approved.

PUBLIC OPINION Demonstrations against the product three years ago showed Americans weren't very supportive of injecting dairy cows with synthetic growth hormones. A whopping 74 % of those questioned in a University of Wisconsin study released just last year, expressed concern about unknown, harmful human health effects which might not show up until later.

RISKS OF BGH There is highly suggestive, if not persuasive line of evidence showing that consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer. Dr. Samuel Epstein, a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is an expert on the environmental causes of cancer. He is opposed to Posilac (BGH) being given to cows that produce your milk on the basis of a body of peer reviewed research that raises some troubling health questions.

MONSANTO'S QUESTIONABLE ETHICS Monsanto, the giant chemical company that sells this synthetic hormone (previously manufacturer of Agent Orange and PCBs), rejects the concerns of scientists around the world and insists, "There is nothing to worry about".

Dr. William Bonmeyer, a scientist in Wisconsin, expressed concerns that "If we allow BGH to go on, I am sure that we are taking excessive risks with society". His concerns have sparked an inquiry by Congressman Scott Flug. Flug wants to know how the product was approved by the FDA for use in the U.S. three years ago, while a dozen European countries, Canada and New Zealand, have blocked its use.

NOTABLE QUOTES:

George Wald who received a Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine said, " Recombinant DNA technology, which is genetic engineering, faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science but life on earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the product of some three billion years of evolution. Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly and new forms had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbours."

Dr. Richard Lacey is a very, very distinguished medical doctor, microbiologist and professor of food safety at Leeds University. He became famous when he predicted mad cow disease more than seven years ago. He stated, “It is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health affects of genetically engineered foods when they are introduced in the food chain; nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction. There is no practical value for genetically engineered food.”

Dr. Joseph Cummins, who is a very well recognized environmentalist in North America, is one of the few scientists in Canada who speaks out against genetic engineering. Most scientists won't speak out against genetic engineering because they get their research money from industry and could be very severely reprimanded by their department; they could lose their research grants, their laboratories and funding. Dr. Cummins has been severely criticized and ridiculed, but recently there have been indications that he could be right. He stated, "Perhaps the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus genes into the crops. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops, or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power. When they send in a foreign gene they put it on the back of a virus so the virus can take it right into the DNA, but if that virus mutates, it could result in a deadly or dangerous virus that could result in new injurious diseases, new viruses, and new pathogens."

Dr. Pusztai is a very prestigious scientist at the Rawat Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He announced to the press that he had genetically engineered some potatoes which had caused internal organ system damage and immune damage to his test animals. Within a few days, he was ridiculed, had lost his job, and was forced into retirement. His boss announced on the news that he had made a mistake, but several dozen scientists around the world came to his support, studied his research and said that he was correct, that these genetically engineered potatoes were dangerous. Earlier this year, he actually testified at the House of Commons in London, where they are now doing a major inquiry.

Dr. Irwin Chargoff, who is regarded as the father of modern molecular biology (genetic engineering) stated, "You can't recall a new form of life. It will survive you and your children and your children's children. It is an irreversible attack on the biosphere, something unheard of, unthinkable to previous generations. I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it.”

Britain’s Prince Charles is strongly opposed to genetic engineering, and he has stated that “Genetic engineering is like playing God.” (see www.princeofwales.gov.uk/forum)

See August 1999 newsletter for genetic engineering websites, Richard Wolfson's article, The Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, and 'How We Can Protect Ourselves'.



Wow.....now you are shooting blanks....go back to your tent city utopia.

SR
 

timhorton

New member
Jun 18, 2002
223
1
0
I don't think you even really know what GMO is. GMOing has gone on for thousands of years. It's not just creating Frankenstein food through maniacal lab experiments. GMO can be good.

1. Some chinese farmer in 1100AD takes one breed of rice and cross it with another that survives cold better = produces a hybrid breed that is more cold resistant and yields crops in areas that otherwise wouldn't support them.
2. An industrious farmer in the 1800 crossbreeds his small breed of cows with the neighbour's big bull Holstein sire to create larger progeny and increase the marketability of his cattle = genetic modification
3. Some scientist crosses cassava with a potato that is more naturally pest resistant and allows subsistence farmers in developing countries to not starve because of pest infestation and crop loss.

Breeding new strains of plants is an important factor in ensuring a stable supply of food that is adapted to changing conditions. It's been a fundamental part of agriculture and husbandry since its inception.

In the last year, I bet the only thing you might have eaten that has not gone through some genetic modification at the hand of man is maybe wild salmon or if you are a game hunter. If it comes off a farm or a ranch, it's been genetically modified.

Just because some of the genetic modification has been facilitated or accelerated in a lab does not make GMO necessarily bad. Overall, GMO has been the process that supports the global food supply chain. You'd be a whole lot hungrier and undernourished without it.
 

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
Dismantling of all supply management boards in Canada = good thing for consumers here. Importation of GM crops not necessarily bad, especially when only used for food. These things drive down the cost of food for all Canadian & thus allow them to enjoy a higher standard of living.

Not true at all. The impact of supply managment on consumer prices is neglible. If dairy prices are lower in the US it's because of substantial government subsidies.
 

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
come back when you have some hard facts to produce

.....

as for the 'marketing boards', consider this: you drive south through cloverdale and all you see is 'hobby' horse farms, hay fields to feed the hobby horses and bush. you cross the line into washington state and all you see is dairy farms, most of which have hand painted signs up proclaiming milk and eggs for sale. why is this? both areas have the same air, water , soil, and ethnicity of its people - could it just possibly be the presence of 'marketing boards' in Canada?

If' there's more dairy production in Washington State, it's probably the presence of major US Govt subsidies to dairy production. Despite that, as you know, there are dairy farms on the Canadian side as well. In fact, in the north valley agricultural acreage has been expanding in the berry production field.

Perhaps your own admonition is one you might want to observe.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
A reasonable comparison of your position here is the purchasing of aluminum products. Refining Aluminum is extremely energy intensive requiring massive amounts of electricity. Now, you can make electricity using hydroelectric dams which produce electricity with a very low carbon footprint or you can get if from a coal fired plant that has a very large carbon footprint. Obviously by your logic, we should require that all products containing any amount of aluminum should be labeled as to what source of electricity was used in the refining of the aluminum so that consumers can make a choice as to the carbon footprint of this one ingredient of their product, be it an I-pod or a motor-home...
now yer talkin'...
ib's tin foil hat should be labelled: 'hydro dam hat' or 'coal fired hat' :pound:
 
Last edited:

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
Not true. else our prices for milk products would be comparable with NZ and others. It is patently absurd to take the position that a monopoly with a set ceiling on production provides consumers with the best prices in the world for those products.

The TOTAL return to the primary producer is small relative to the final retail price. Any additional return they are receiving due to supply management is SMALLER STILL. Subtract from that very small amount the amount the consumer saves in taxes due to the absence of government subsidies, and what do you have left?

Studies done by the Fraser Inst and other business lobbies are intended to shift the returns in favour of other interests.
 

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
What I have a problem with
1. Lack of testing. If we are putting this in our bodies why shouldn't it undergo the same kind of testing a new drug does? There is pretty much zero regulation on the long term effects of GM foods. The same people that have worked for monsanto winds up being in the FDA pushing these things to market as fast as they can.
2. The way monsanto operates as shown with the BGH million dollar bribe which then turns into "funds for research grant" then the firing of the board members that opposed and brought to light the bribe.
3. The way monsanto will sue a farmer for using their seeds when a couple blew over from another field and send frivilous law suits to the farmers who will then spend all day in court defending himself on totally bogus charges. Monsanto does this on purpose to force the farmer to grow their product or spend every penny they earn on regular product on legal fees.
4. The CONSUMER needs to have labeling to decide for themselves whether or not to buy the GM product. I could care less if the farmer knows. *I* need to be able to see the labeling and not spend all my time researching packaging/companies.
5. Whether your electricity is hydro powered or coil fired the end result is you get electricity and not some untested variant of electricity. The north american coal fired plants run extremely clean to the point of producing only water vapor coming out the smoke stacks. In other parts of the planet coal could be dirty but thats not the issue here.

Feel free to address any of those listed problems as to not go off topic again.
The following are just some examples of questionable business practices. If you decide to write all these issues off as tin foil hat wearing conspiracies then go ahead and eatup.

Bribes,strangling the farmers with the legal system and just purposely being decietful/misleading is that the kind of company I want to have a foothold in Canada? Hell no.
FYI look up has happened to indian farmers committing suicide thanks to monsanto's business practicies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA
What happens to scientists to speak out against GM foods.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfood37.htm
Guess who is producing aluminum resistant crops after spraying barium salts and aluminum oxide in the air, with the plan to harm other crops. This is why there is more heavy metal contamination found in soil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
GMO fed mammals to become sterile in 4 generations.
http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/GMO Birth Control.htm
 
Last edited:

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
Do you track what sort of farming is on land offered for sale in the Fraser Valley? Berries aren't profitable enough to offset the cost of harvesting the crop. That's why you can easily find former berry farms offered for sale. Even Dairy Farms aren't that profitable and they won't survive in BC once fluid milk and cheese is allowed to be sold over the border.

What the Fraser Valley has that the area immediately south doesn't have is 3 major highways that make it relatively easy for the Hobby Farmer / Horse Nut to get into the city for their work. That inflates the value of the farmland, puts pressure on the owners to sell into a market that may not exist in a few years and puts pressure on the governments to modify or repeal the laws regarding the use of agricultural land.

Even the Hobby Farmer / Horse Nut is being forced away from certain areas because the municipalities are upzoning land for condominiums and townhouses. I had a Horse Nut friend that sold his property on 208 because he was tired of being surrounded by townhouses, plus he got the proverbial "Offer that can't be refused". That's why his old place is now more townhouses. He deliberately bought where there is no real possibility of city water and city sewer for years so that he could continue to have horses.

The major "subsidy" that the Dairy Farmers enjoy south of the border is that the governments HAVEN'T built highways for easy access to Seattle. The Corn subsidy is taken advantage of on both sides of the border. Canadian Dairy farmers have easy access to American Feed, in fact, if you watch what comes through the 264th border crossing - those big trucks are carrying American Feed Corn.
Al much of what you say is true regarding the pressure on agricultural land prices brought about by people in upper income fields looking for estate home acreages. As to whether or not running a "hobby farm" or owning and riding horses are a valid hobby, I think that's a matter best left to individual tastes, with the one proviso that the very low $3000 threshold to qualify for the agricultural tax rate is long overdue for a very major revision.

However, you're quite wrong about berries. Berry production is being expanded for both cranberries and blueberries. The Aquilini group, yes, the Canucks owners, have a division that has in recent years spend major dollars putting hundreds and hundreds of more acres under cultivation. These crops are export competitive. It is very definitely making money, and some of that money is financing some or the larger homes you see out in the valley.
 

InnocentBoy

Banned
Mar 5, 2006
845
6
18
Listen Sally. Are you trying to tell me there is no hydrogen involved in the process of coal burning? Last time I checked you needed oxygen for a fire so.... Anyhow thats off topic.

Are you really telling me that a farmer who has to buy (GM terminator one generation seeds) is somehow stealing them so he can plant a few in his field? That is VASTLY different than dowloading music/movies. The farmers never even wanted GM crops in their fields. Why on earth would they when their nautural crops produce nautural seeds?

I guess you must be the authority for "safe GMO" to the rest of the population. Clearly you are benifiting from this or else you would have *NO* reason to force the rest of population to have less choices.
If people want organic non GMO products they are willing to pay more for it and certification/labeling let them do so.
Thanks Silky.

Perhaps you should have studied chemistry at some point in your life. Water (and thus water vapour) consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. It is formed by the oxidation (burning) of hydrogen or chemicals that contain hydrogen. Coal is almost pure carbon. Being a naturally occurring material laid down by geological processes from organic materials it does have other impurities in it like sulfur and mercury, but not much in the way of either hydrogen or oxygen. So I really have no idea how any educated person can say that the main emissions of any coal fired power plant is water vapour. The chemistry just doesn't work.

As for the rest, I can understand farmers objecting to nuisance law suits. But many of them (not all, but many) are guilty of what the corporations change them of, intentionally using the corporation's intellectual property without paying for it. This is no different than pirating music & movies & complaining when the copyright holder takes you to court.

As for detailed chemical testing of GMO, sure for those being bred to actually produce their own pesticides like some forms of corn (BT?). But GMO that are just resistant to externally applied chemicals or that produce more protein or sugar, bigger or more seeds, etc. than other hybrids really pose no danger to the public and should not be placed in the same class. Irrationality of poorly educated & informed people should not drive public policy.
 

timhorton

New member
Jun 18, 2002
223
1
0
Those too have been genetically modified by man, though not through direct modification. Our harvesting of the salmon & Deer & encroaching on their ecosystems has changed their genetic make up. We removed the larger & more inquisitive or aggressive salmon with our nets and lures leaving the smaller & shyer fish to form the breeding stock. We shoot the biggest bucks and the ones that are willing to spend more time in the open, taking them out of the genetic pool. If course we've moved Atlantic Salmon to the west coast along with other salmonid species that compete with and interbreed with wild species.
You don't really know how commercial fishing works on the West Coast, and obviously aren't a food game hunter.

But yes, many things can influence the biodiversity and genetic trajectory of a particular stock so I'll agree that there can be indirect genetic implications. But these happen at an evolutionary pace, not within a generation as is seen with agricultural and livestock husbandry.

While I'm no fan of the open water farm fish industry in BC, it's salient to note there has been no known cases of interbreeding Atlantic and Pacific salmon. Atlantic salmon are not salmonids; they are actually a trout species. Any marine biologist has to concede that cross-breeding is very, very unlikely, close to impossible under natural conditions. But nature will do what nature will do.
 

timhorton

New member
Jun 18, 2002
223
1
0
Not true at all. The impact of supply managment on consumer prices is neglible. If dairy prices are lower in the US it's because of substantial government subsidies.
Umm...supply management is the main driver of cost aside from the raw COGs. And subsidies aside, a major factor of dairy prices in the US is the simple economy of scale in production and distribution.

Where did you study economics?
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,489
8
38
on yer ignore list
You don't really know how commercial fishing works on the West Coast, and obviously aren't a food game hunter.

But yes, many things can influence the biodiversity and genetic trajectory of a particular stock so I'll agree that there can be indirect genetic implications. But these happen at an evolutionary pace, not within a generation as is seen with agricultural and livestock husbandry.

While I'm no fan of the open water farm fish industry in BC, it's salient to note there has been no known cases of interbreeding Atlantic and Pacific salmon. Atlantic salmon are not salmonids; they are actually a trout species. Any marine biologist has to concede that cross-breeding is very, very unlikely, close to impossible under natural conditions. But nature will do what nature will do.
yah, didn't y'all watch jurassic park? they gmo'd frogs and got dinosaurs fer fuck's sake... i'll bet monsanto was in on that big time!
 
Vancouver Escorts